Since the indictment states that the identity of the other conspirators is not known to the accuser, it is presumed that the investigative authorities acted properly to locate them, but without success. It would not be unreasonable to assume that the defendants did not assist the investigating authorities in this matter either, and therefore it is puzzling to ask Defendant 2 's question, "Why are only the two of us accused out of the 30 people?" (Page 70 of the minutes of November 26, 2025).
- As for the straw women, in my opinion, the comparison that the defense seeks to make between the defendants and the straw women is misplaced, and it also cannot establish a claim of selective enforcement. As it appears from the indictment, the share of the defendants in the affair is tens of times greater and significant than the share of the straw women, and we are not dealing with the same "equality group" (See Criminal Appeal 8551/11 Yitzhak Cohen v. Israel Police, August 12, 2012). The accuser's choice to file an indictment only against the senior echelon, initiator and executor of the fraudulent venture is legitimate and serves the public interest. It certainly cannot be said that the distinction made by the accuser between the various parties involved in the affair is based on irrelevant considerations.
Moreover, the accuser's counsel clarified that although a number of straw women were interrogated in the case, the accuser chose not to act to locate many other women and exhaust the proceedings against them, for reasons of the efficiency of conducting the proceedings and achieving a quick judicial decision against the main and dominant perpetrators. It was further argued that to the extent that the accuser had acted to exhaust the proceedings against the straw women (or the students who cheated on the exams), the investigation process would have continued for many years and in a manner that would have delayed the proceedings against the defendants and harmed the public interest. In my opinion, this consideration is a legitimate and pertinent consideration that falls within the scope of the accuser's considerations.