Criminal Case (Center) 4577-07-24 Competition Authority v. Yaron Peretz

Decision

Introduction

1. The indictment was filed against 13 defendants and 13 companies, accusing them of committing offenses of restrictive arrangement, fraudulent receipt, breach of reporting obligation, and money laundering, each according to his part. In summary, the defendants are accused of involvement in a large-scale affair involving coordinating tenders and requests for quotes for transportation services or carrying out transportation for local authorities, public hospitals, and the Israel Electric Corporation, from 2016 to 2018.
2. The indictment is the result of an extensive and complex investigation that was conducted, in the first stage, against about 100 suspects on suspicion of coordinating 160 tenders in the field of transportation. During the course of the investigation, and due to the scope of those involved, the prosecution decided to focus the investigation on four criteria, which, in its view, reflect offenses whose harm to competition is the greatest and whose circumstances are serious, including: the existence of a restrictive arrangement that has been perfected and implemented; the commission of a fraudulent offense by way of receiving funds as a result of the coordination of the tender; The tender is in an expected scope of over ILS 4,000,000; and the corresponding tender is of a public body.

Subsequently, the prosecution found prima facie evidence of the filing of an indictment against 50 people involved in addition to the companies involved.  After the conclusion of the investigation, and prior to the hearings, the prosecution decided to focus further and file an indictment against the suspects whose involvement is the most significant, according to two parameters that reflect, according to the prosecution's position, the role of each suspect, the severity of his actions, and the severity of the harm to competition: first, the number of offenses of any kind - restrictive arrangement, fraud and money laundering - attributed to each suspect; and second, the amount of money received as a result of the offenses.  Each suspect received a "criminal score" based on these parameters, while comparing all the suspects.  In the end, it was decided to file an indictment against the 17 suspects who received the highest score, meaning that their relative share among the suspects is the largest, according to the prosecution.  Two of them signed state witness agreements, and two others were indicted separately.  This proceeding, as mentioned, is being conducted against 13 defendants and 13 other defendant companies.

3. The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916This is the place to note that the indictment was initially filed in the Jerusalem District Court (Criminal Case 68255-02-24) [Nevo]. Subsequently, the prosecution withdrew the indictment filed in Jerusalem, which was canceled, and a request to cancel the cancellation decision was rejected (decisions of July 2, 2024 and July 16, 2024).  The prosecution filed the indictment in question again in the Central District Court.
4. 12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D.  51 (2)The defendants, or any of them, argued that the indictment should be dismissed, due to a long list of preliminary arguments, including claims concerning protection from justice and selective enforcement, claims regarding defects in the indictment and attribution of offenses, and claims of double risk in the filing of the indictment again.
5. As part of their preliminary arguments, the defendants, or any of them, raised the following claims, which will be detailed below:

Filing an indictment against only some of those involved in the affair constitutes selective enforcement that is prohibited, and therefore it should be canceled.  In this context, they emphasized that the prosecution chose the wrong criteria, the weight given to each of them was incorrect, and that the calculation of the criminal score was also carried out in a flawed and discriminatory manner;