In the case before me, according to the facts of the indictment, both Siemens Israel and Siemens International were better offended, so that this test is also met.
3.2.4 Imposing liability on a corporation and granting an exemption to an organ
Siemens argues that even in light of these rules, it should not be distinguished from its managers and that it will bear responsibility alone. Siemens refers to a number of cases in case law in which it was criticized that in the framework of plea bargains, the organs whose actions were attributed to the corporation were dismissed, and that the corporation was the one who bore responsibility for the offense and was punished for it in the framework of that plea bargain. In other words, cases in which the members of the company, or anyone on their behalf, have reached a plea bargain with the state, according to which the corporation will be convicted and they will be fired. The defendant claims that the same criticism applies to this case as well, since it also exempted the organs from liability, and the accuser prosecuted Siemens Israel alone.
The accuser argues that the situation is different in two respects. First, the accuser argues, the courts' criticism is not valid in this case, in which the state was forced to conclude state witness agreements in order to bring about the conviction of both the bribe recipients and the defendant. In addition, the accuser claims, the courts' criticism was against the exemption for organs and not against the conviction of the corporation. The law in this matter is with the accuser.
At the outset, it is necessary to reiterate the first concepts and note that attribution of liability to the corporation does not exempt the organ from its own responsibility for the same offense. See, for example, Criminal Appeal 4946/07 Ali Maklada v . MI [published in Nevo] [(2009), where it was held that a person should not be denied criminal liability on the grounds that a person acted as an organizer or agent of a corporation: