2.2.f. The Sixth Charge
In the sixth indictment (which is not attributed to the companies, but is presented to the entirety of the picture), it is alleged that at the beginning of 2015 and after Mr. Motola's dismissal, Africa Israel received information relating to accounting irregularities, which were examined by the company. In light of these examinations, Mr. Motola, Mr. Ivshitz and Ms. Dori acted with the intention of thwarting an expected judicial proceeding. In this framework, it was claimed that Mr. Ivshitz asked her to tell the investigating authorities that he had nothing to do with the irregularities, and that she would only mention Mr. Motola's name, and that Mr. Motola asked her to relate everything to Mr. Klein. Defendant 3, Ms. Dori, confessed to her part in these acts.
2.2.g. The Seventh and Eighth Charges
The seventh and eighth charges relate to Mr. Motola and Ms. Ben Yosef personally and are not related to the overall plan attributed to the defendants, and therefore I will not elaborate on them in this sentence.
- The parties' arguments for punishment
3.a. The accuser's arguments
The parties reached a plea bargain whereby the defendants would plead guilty to an amended indictment and be fined a total of NIS 100,000.
Counsel for the accuser clarified that the two main considerations that the accuser had in mind were, on the one hand, the serious circumstances of the commission of the offenses and the lack of a culture of compliance in the corporations at the time of the commission of these offenses. On the other hand, the unusual voluntary disclosure adopted by the group and its cooperation with the authorities, who are the ones who led to the very opening of the investigation.
According to the accuser's counsel, such conduct by the corporations promotes a significant interest of the state to encourage, first and foremost, the prevention of offenses by the corporation. To the extent that a corporation does not refrain from committing the offenses, the aspiration is to encourage voluntary disclosure and cooperation, when the corporation locates the offenses. In doing so, a message is sent to the employees by the corporation that it is not satisfied with the commission of the offenses and does not encourage it, but rather the opposite. In this regard, the accuser's counsel referred to a relatively new directive issued by the State Attorney from October 2019 regarding the punishment of corporations (1.14).