The indictment was filed against Siemens Israel and six officers of the Israel Electric Corporation. Five of the latter, who were accused of accepting the bribe (defendants 2-6), reached plea bargains with the accuser and were sentenced. The proceeding in the case of the seventh defendant was delayed, so that we are now dealing with the defendant, Siemens Israel only.
Before Siemens Israel responded to the indictment, it raised a series of preliminary arguments, which, according to it, should lead to the cancellation of the indictment. Siemens Israel claimed that it had immunity from prosecution, that there was a statute of limitations for the offenses of which it was accused, or at least a delay, and that the filing of the indictment and the conduct of the criminal proceedings against it were in material contradiction to the principles of justice and legal fairness. The accuser responded to the preliminary allegations in writing. On May 15, 2017, a first hearing was held before me regarding the preliminary arguments. At the hearing, counsel for the defendant agreed that in light of the accuser' s response, it was not possible to discuss the claims of delay and statute of limitations without hearing evidence regarding the development of the investigation, and therefore agreed to reserve the defendant's arguments in this matter until the conclusion of the hearing of the evidence.
With regard to the claims of legal immunity for the defendant, by virtue of the state's witness agreements made with the organs of Siemens Israel, and the argument that the defendant's prosecution violates her right to a fair trial and constitutes selective enforcement, counsel for the defendant insisted that these are legal claims, which can be argued on the basis of the facts alleged in the indictment (without the defendant admitting their correctness, of course). In light of the aforesaid, a date was set for the parties to complete their arguments regarding these preliminary arguments (on June 7, 2017). This decision concerns three preliminary arguments raised by the defendant. First, that the immunity granted to the state's witnesses, who were officers and organs of Siemens Israel, should also apply to the defendant company, and second, that it would not be possible to make use of the statements collected from the organs, the state's witnesses, because this would violate the defendant's right to a fair trial (including the right to remain silent and the right to confidentiality from self-incrimination). and third, that prosecuting Siemens Israel, along with granting an exemption to Siemens Israel officers, constitutes selective enforcement.