3.B. The defendants' arguments
Counsel for the defendants joined the accusing counsel's arguments, and emphasized that their conduct with the discovery, and later by the shareholders who purchased the company, was flawless. He further emphasized that as a result of the commission of the offenses, the benefits to defendants 13-15 were marginal, and on the other hand, the damage caused to them was colossal, as he put it.
According to counsel for the defendants, the only defendants who benefited, even if initially from the defendants' human actions, was Africa Industries, which benefited from a significant increase in its share prices during the relevant period, and from raising capital of tens of millions of shekels from the investing public, and from strengthening their trust and that of the credit rating companies, all of which were based on false representations. Counsel for the defendants presented in support of his claim data on this matter in real time. According to him, the other companies in the group were only harmed by the acts. Counsel for the defendants further argued that most of the actions carried out by the officers, certainly the most senior among them, are closer to acts of breach of trust towards the corporations, which was expressed in the preference of their personal interests over those of the group. Counsel for the defendants referred to the fifth and sixth charges, which are of a personal nature, according to him, and describe the enormous efforts made by the officers to conceal the true state of the company and to conceal their own actions by fraud and obstruction of justice. Counsel for the defendants adds that the seventh and eighth charges also illustrate how the group was exploited to promote the personal desires of the human defendants, who used their money to give themselves and others benefits that stimulated the criminal apparatus.
Counsel for the defendants further argues that as soon as the ownership of the company changed, with its acquisition by its current owners, the company began to make decisions that stemmed from real data and in accordance with the company's situation. According to him, the company's directors instructed its legal advisors not to conduct evidence in the case and to take responsibility from the very beginning of the proceeding, all for actions that were not theirs and without knowing in the end whether and with what the organs would be convicted. Counsel for the defendants argued that the current management approach is to conduct itself lawfully and appropriately and to leave the past behind. According to him, the new owners, as indicated by the appendices submitted in support of the arguments for punishment, poured millions of shekels into order to rehabilitate the membership. In addition, it is necessary to take into account the damage to the image that accompanies a conviction that lasts years after the offenses. Counsel for the defendants emphasizes that this is not a company in liquidation or a publicly traded skeleton, but rather a living company, which is taking very difficult steps towards rehabilitation, and therefore the conviction itself harms the group.