The defendant goes on to claim that the fact that later on the organs signed state witness agreements and received immunity, should also be attributed to the company, by virtue of the organs' theory. I will address this question now.
3.2.5.b. The nature of the state's witness agreement: personal or within the framework of the witness's role as an organizer
The question of whether it is appropriate to attribute immunity by virtue of a state-witness agreement to a corporation is a question of legal policy. As I will clarify below, the basis for drafting a state-witness agreement or granting immunity, as well as the incentives to do so on behalf of both parties, lead to the conclusion that it is inappropriate to grant immunity to a corporation that received organs on its behalf who committed the offense as part of a state-witness agreement.
First and foremost, the definition of a state witness inthe Evidence Ordinance defines a state witness as an accomplice to an offense who testifies against his accomplices. Section 54A of the Evidence Ordinance defines a state witness (for the purpose of the evidentiary assistance requirement for which his testimony is required): "In this regard, a 'state witness' – an accomplice to that offense who testifies on behalf of the prosecution after a benefit has been given or promised to him."
In other words, we are dealing with the testimony of someone who was involved in an offense against his accomplices. As for the corporation and the organs, these are not partners at all. The behavior and thoughts of the organist are attributed to the corporation, due to social considerations that I discussed at length above. In other words, we are dealing with one perpetrator, the organizer, whose criminal offense is attributed to the corporation. I will leave the question of whether their testimony will be required to assist the defendant until the end of the proceeding, since only then will it be possible to know whether the defendant's responsibility has been determined on the basis of their testimonies (in this regard, see: Boaz Sanjaro, "Testimony of an Accomplice to the Offense – Effectiveness vs. Truth (on the Cancellation of the Kinsey Rule)", in: Sefer Bach, 335 (David Hahn, Dana Cohen-Lekach and Michael Bach, Editors, 2011). However, at this stage, I am prepared to assume that an organ can be a state witness against the corporation, even though these are not accomplices in an offense.