Some of the charges are drafted in general, and without sufficient detail, in a way that impairs the defendants' ability to defend themselves;
The general section is worded too detailed, including facts that are irrelevant and that could harm the defendants and their defense.
- The defendants, or any of them, also added that it was not possible to file the indictment in the Central District Court, after the indictment filed in the Jerusalem District Court was canceled, and that it was a double risk.
Discussion and Decision
Protection from Justice - Selective Enforcement
The parties' arguments in relation to the claim of protection from justice
- First, the argument of all the defendants will be discussed that the prosecution took selective enforcement in its decision to file an indictment against them, while it did not file an indictment against other people involved - other transportation companies and their owners - who were investigated in the affair and evidence was found against them. Some of the defendants also claimed that selective enforcement was also taken in relation to the defendants in other similar cases in which many were involved, and that indictments were filed against all those involved, and not only some of them. From this they argued that they had a claim for protection from justice, since the continuation of the proceeding against them contradicts the principles of justice and fairness. Alternatively, the various defendants argued that the charges against them should be dropped.
- Counsel for some of the defendants also claimed that in some of the charges, no indictment was filed specifically against the main parties involved, who led the price coordination and even received compensation, while an indictment was filed against those involved, some of whom were smaller and in some cases did not even win tenders. This is a matter of severe economic harm and discrimination against the defendants, according to them. In this context, they emphasized the economic damage caused by the obligation imposed on them to disclose the existence of the indictment in every bid for a tender, while those other parties involved are not required to do so.
- Most of the defendants further argued that the criteria chosen by the prosecution for the purpose of focusing the investigation and the focus of enforcement at the stage of filing the indictment caused a miscarriage of justice, since they do not necessarily reflect the severity of the offense.
They also added in this context that the prosecution's decision regarding the defendants against whom an indictment will be filed was based on two parameters, which do not reflect a legal standard, are not anchored, and are not relevant to the elements of the offense of restrictive arrangement or the offense of fraud. According to them, the defendants involved in many incidents were also charged with offenses in cases in which they did not take a substantial part. In their view, this is a fundamental failure in the exercise of the enforcement authority, since the two parties to a restrictive arrangement were treated differently without justification.