In section 31B, it was noted that the plaintiff and defendant 1 held 45% of the shares of C.A.Z. Although an appeal was filed on the face of it, defendant 1's friend Ran Weinstein was registered, with Meir Piso (defendant 3) holding 50% of the shares, while at a later stage the holdings were changed (section 37);
In section 47 it was noted that the plaintiff and defendant 1 were in fact the controlling shareholders (90%) of Hasson Gesher;
In paragraphs 54-55 it was noted that despite the records, the plaintiff and defendant 1 were the controlling shareholders in Etgar (i.e., Edgar);
In section 62 it was noted that Oden Entrepreneurship was under the control of the plaintiff and defendant 1.
(All emphases are not in the original).
The plaintiff and defendant 1 did indeed bear equally the fines and other economic consequences of the amended indictment, including the forfeiture of assets, (section 14 of the plea bargain), but this was done due to the attribution of management and overall control to both of them in the framework of the companies' activities and the channeling of the profits of the manpower corporations to the plaintiff and defendant 1 (section 96), and not due to their perception as partners in the partnership under the Ordinance. The amended indictment does not define the plaintiff and defendant 1 as "partners".
- The plaintiff tried to present the payment of the fines as evidence of the existence of a partnership also through the testimony of CPA Elron, but this contradicted this interpretation:
Adv. A. Seroussi: ... Correct me if I'm wrong, but the parties were personally charged in the framework of the criminal and taxation proceedings that each of them paid millions personally, right?
The witness, Mr. Y. Elron: No. In the opinion of the lawyer that I received, the fines were on the companies on Oden Services, I have the opinion from a lawyer in the firm, we also listed it as expenses in an unrecognized company, because it was a fine, it could only be they were charged as personal liability in criminal cases, but in terms of the fines, it was in the companies.