The Honorable President A. Grunis also noted the matter, while adopting the position of the Honorable Justice E. Hayut (paragraph 45 of his judgment):
"Indeed, the issue of imposing personal criminal liability on officers for an offense that can be attributed to the corporation was not discussed further. Nevertheless, I would like to join Judge Hayut's comment. As a rule, it is appropriate to refrain from granting an "exemption" to officers while taking criminal measures against the corporation only. Imposing liability on the corporation's officers in appropriate cases will contribute to the realization of the deterrence purposes and direction of behavior of criminal law. Today, the main penalties that can be imposed on corporations are a fine or compensation. In my opinion, I stood by the limited effectiveness of financial punishment when it comes to corporations..... Imposing responsibility on the officers will also make it clear to the decision makers in the corporations that they are liable to pay a personal price for offenses committed under the auspices of the corporate veil. This can contribute to deterrence and the prevention of repeat offenses. Another reason for refraining from granting an "exemption" from liability to the officers of a corporation is the representative problem, which involves formulating plea bargains in corporate offenses. It should be remembered that the negotiators and negotiators with the State Attorney's Office in the negotiations to formulate an arrangement, whether directly or indirectly, are the officers themselves, who are interested, of course, in preventing them from being convicted of criminal offenses. In other words, there is a conflict of interest between the corporation and the officers. The best interests of the corporation will not necessarily be in front of the eyes of the officers, because there is a significant personal incentive to shift the full responsibility on it.... However, I am correct to accept, in the spirit of the words of my colleague Justice Amit in the judgment that is the subject of the additional hearing, that it will not be justified to impose liability even on the officers of the corporation for every offense. In this context, I agree that weight should be given to the considerations enumerated by my colleague, as detailed above."