Counsel for defendants 1 and 4 argued alternatively for a double risk, since during the months of conducting the proceedings in Jerusalem, steps were taken against the defendants, which cannot be ignored.
- The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the Jerusalem District Court rejected the arguments regarding the cancellation of the indictment, including the claim that the prosecution wanted to choose a panel, since it was unable to know the identity of the panel, and ruled that the prosecution acted lawfully. According to her, although the order relates to an application to the Director of Courts for the purpose of transferring files, this does not prevent the prosecution from acting as it did. It also claimed that the transfer was required due to the workload in the Jerusalem District Court, and that it was intended to transfer all of the Competition Authority's proceedings to the Central District Court, due to systemic considerations. She also clarified that there is no distinction between a cancelled indictment that was filed lawfully and one that was filed illegally, with regard to its re-filing. As for the claim of double risk, the prosecution argued that a judgment canceling an indictment does not establish a double risk.
- It is possible that it would have been better if the prosecution had applied to transfer the case from the Jerusalem District Court to the Central District Court, whether in accordance with section 78 of the Courts Law [Consolidated Version], 5744-1984, or according to section 2 of the Criminal Procedure Order. However, this does not prevent her from acting in a manner other than that is legally enshrined in her.
- According to section 94(a) of the Criminal Procedure Law, "if a prosecutor withdraws an indictment before the defendant responds to the indictment, the court shall cancel the charge; If he subsequently retracts it, the court will acquit the defendant of the same charge."
This section allows the prosecution to withdraw an indictment that was filed, in a manner that leads to its cancellation, without any distinction between the withdrawal of an indictment that was filed lawfully and one that was filed illegally. In fact, there is no reason to assume that the section deals specifically with an indictment that was filed illegally, as arguments for counsel for defendants 1-4, and it can be assumed that if the indictment was filed illegally, it is void even if the prosecution does not retract its filing. The adoption of the interpretation proposed by counsel for defendants 1-4 eliminates, in effect, the distinction between retraction of an indictment before the defense's response and retraction after the response. Hence, once the indictment is canceled, the prosecution may file it again.