However, this is not a case of circumstances in which the conduct of the proceeding severely harms the sense of justice. Despite all the pain involved, indictments are frequently filed against defendants whose family situation is difficult, even at the cost of harm to family members - sometimes a heavy price - and this case is no different from other cases.
- Counsel for the defendant indicates that the defendant does not stay close to his son all the time, but rather leaves for short periods of time. It should also be remembered that the offenses were allegedly committed during his son's life and despite his difficult condition. This, too, strengthens the conclusion that there is no justification for the cancellation of the indictment. However, and if necessary, specific adjustments can be made in order to make it easier for the defendant and his son during the trial.
- In light of the above, the motion to cancel the indictment against Defendant 11 due to his personal circumstances is denied.
Defect in the indictment - general wording of the charges
- A number of defendants claimed that the charges were drafted in general, without sufficient detail regarding the formulation of the arrangements and their details, while presenting alternative options, and that this would impair their ability to defend themselves. Therefore, they requested that the indictment be amended so that the charges would be properly detailed.
Counsel for defendants 9 and 10 argued that the fifth and sixth charges were formulated in a general and vague manner, without specifying what issues were included in it, such as the lines on which agreements were formed. According to them, due to the absence of this element in the factual basis of the offense, the charges do not meet the requirements of the law.
According to counsel for defendants 13-15, with respect to the first, fifth and sixteenth charges, defendant 15's share in the arrangements was not specified - it was not clarified in which cases she refrained from submitting a price quote, in which cases she submitted a high bid, which lines she agreed to give up and which lines other companies waived in order to enable her to win. They also argued that the reference to the various lines should be detailed, instead of using the term "inter alia" due to the lack of sufficient evidence in relation to other lines, and that wording that allows proof of alternative factual claims should be avoided.