The accuser clarifies that the exemption for officers in this case is required for investigative reasons. Regarding Aaronson and Hirsch, state witness agreements were signed in order to obtain information in their possession, and indeed incriminated, each according to his version, Siemens. As for Mr. Weiss, he was granted immunity from prosecution so that he could be summoned to testify in Germany, where a suspect may not appear for questioning. In these circumstances, in which there was a real need to exempt the officers, these are exceptional circumstances in which, according to the case law, the corporation can be prosecuted without the officers, the organs.
The accuser also refers to Siemens Israel's statement that it was not appropriate to prosecute and exonerate the organs, since Siemens Israel cooperated with the accuser and notes that this cooperation was not proactive. Although Siemens filed a lawsuit against Aaronson to return the money that was supposed to be used as bribe money and remained in his possession, it did not contact the authorities and clarified that he had additional sums of money. According to the accuser, if Siemens Israel had approached the accuser on its own initiative, before the state's witness agreements with the organs had been concluded, it is possible that such an agreement would have been concluded with it. If, on the other hand, as Siemens Israel claims, it did not have any information, and it was entirely in the hands of the organs, then it is not an egalitarian group, since at that time it was very logical to enter into agreements with the state's witnesses and grant them immunity, alongside the prosecution of Siemens Israel.
The accuser further argues that the conceptual basis for imposing criminal liability on a corporation by virtue of the doctrine of organs is not only to denounce the offenders after the fact, but first and foremost to give the corporations incentives to prevent the commission of offenses in advance. According to her, imposing personal liability on the perpetrator of the offense is intended to serve other purposes such as deterrence and retribution, while imposing liability on corporations is intended first and foremost to provide incentives to prevent the commission of offenses by the organs in advance. According to her, where the corporation does not benefit from the commission of the offenses (as in the case of causing death by negligence), the corporation will have incentives anyway to try and prevent the commission of the offenses. This is not the case , according to the accuser, when it comes to offenses such as the offenses that are the subject of the indictment before me, the fruits of which the corporation itself enjoys. According to the accuser, the difficulty in discovering bribery offenses will lead to the fact that if it is not possible for the officers to testify against the corporation, the corporation will often be cleared of the offenses it committed and enjoyed, and it will have no incentive to act to prevent those offenses.