According to Section 10 of the Legal Aid Law: "Evidence or information obtained in Israel pursuant to a request for legal aid of another country, in connection with a criminal matter, shall not be transferred unless the competent authority has received a promise from the requesting country that the evidence and information will be used only in the criminal matter for which they were requested and that they will not be used in any other way, except with the prior approval of the competent authority in Israel."
In other words, it would have been possible to demand that the foreign country not make any "other use" of the reconstruction cores and to temporarily assign them (until an investigation is conducted) into the Israeli government wallet.
Admittedly, the question of the investigators' awareness of those proprietary elements in the information that was transferred was not discussed in the proceeding that was conducted in the trial court, because the trial court was of the opinion, in view of the manner in which it acted as stated above, that this was an irrelevant figure. However, the police must take all reasonable measures to maintain the integrity and integrity of the property and to prevent damage to it and its value. This is by virtue of the (general) duty of the investigative unit to act as necessary to preserve the value of [any] object seized by it. This obligation was discussed at length in 7600/08 Aryeh Avram v. the State of Israel (2008), where it was clearly held that:
"Possession of the object in the possession of the police for the purposes stated in section 32 of the Ordinance imposes a responsibility on the police to preserve the economic value of the seizure. This assumption is required whenever a person keeps in possession of an asset belonging to another. This is especially the case, when the state is the one in possession of another's object, which came into its hands without the owner's consent, and as part of a criminal proceeding conducted by it. The duty to preserve the value of the seized property is closely related to the property right of the owner of the object (the Largo case, ibid.) and the violation of this right should be minimized as much as possible, since it is a right with the status of a constitutional right, caused by seizure (Miscellaneous Applications Criminal 10015/07 Avital v. State of Israel (unpublished, 23 December 2007) (President Beinisch); Miscellaneous Applications Criminal 6817/07 State of Israel v. Sitbon (unpublished, 31 October 2007) (Judge Arbel). This duty is imposed on the police by virtue of its status as a public authority, which must act responsibly and fairly towards the citizen. It stems from the possibility that the property will be returned to its owner without a trial being initiated; It requires the expectation of the possibility that the property will be used as evidence in the trial, which will ultimately acquit the owner and the property will be returned to him. There is even a possibility that if convicted, the property will be confiscated in favor of the state. Moreover, it should not be ruled out that the seized object taken from the suspect belongs to a third party that has nothing to do with the criminal proceeding. In each and every one of these situations, there is a duty to preserve the value of the property when it is in the hands of the police and to ensure that it is not damaged."