The first state witness agreement with Aharonson was signed on November 20, 2005. At that time, Mr. Aharonson served as CEO of Siemens Israel (the agreement was attached as Appendix 2 to the defendant's preliminary arguments). The agreement dealt with an investigation against Attorney Dan Cohen that was taking place at the time. According to the agreement, Mr. Aharonson undertook to cooperate with the Israel Securities Authority, to provide truthful testimonies about the affair under investigation, as well as relevant documents. Aharonson further undertook to testify truthfully, as well as to keep the contents of the agreement confidential. The state's undertaking was to give Aaronson the status of a state witness "in relation to the offenses in the framework of the affair under investigation" (section 9.to the agreement), which includes immunity from criminal prosecution, including with respect to any material provided by him. It was further determined (in clause 9b of the agreement) that the same immunity from prosecution would also apply to the following: members of Mr. Aaronson's family;Mr. Shlomo Daniel, Mr. Weiss, Siemens Israel Ltd.; Siemens International; Oakfield Company (a company owned by Shlomo Daniel); Mr. Dieter Hans Mohr, Inteco (a company affiliated with Mr. Mohr) and Israel Ziegler Electrical Engineering Company (1976) in a tax appeal (a company holding shares in Siemens Israel Ltd., and controlled by Mr. Aaronson).
In 2014, as noted, another state witness agreement was signed with Mr. Aharonson. The same agreement states that: "The parties hereby cancel the agreement between them given in clause 9.B. As for all the companies listed in it...Except for the Oakfield Company inTax Appeal and Ziegler Electrical Engineering Ltd.".
- The parties' arguments and the course of the hearing
The defense attorney, Attorney Nadav Weissman, argued for the defendant with talent and taste, and sought to convince me, for a number of reasons, that the indictment against her should be dismissed. The state' s attorney, Attorney Yehudit Tirosh-Gross, rejected his arguments and emphasized why the defendant should be prosecuted. Counsel for the State also raised, with taste and skill, counter-arguments to all of the defendant's claims. The following is a summary of the arguments.