Second, with regard to the incentives for concluding a state-witness agreement in this context. Counsel for the defendant argued that if the court does not disqualify, as a matter of policy, the possibility of concluding a state-witness agreement with an organ for the purpose of convicting the corporation, then corporations will not only not denounce the organs that have committed offenses, but on the contrary will "embrace" those organs, as he put it. As long as they do not try to obtain immunity and save their skin. The state, on the other hand, claims that the state's incentive is to convict criminals. Of course, according to her, it would have been better if there had been evidence to convict both the organs and the corporation. However, according to the state' s attorney, due to a lack of evidence, there was no choice but to grant immunity to the organs. The state's counsel emphasizes that the testimony of the organs has already led to the conviction of five defendants, who received bribes from the IEC. According to her, if it is determined that the state should not act as it did in this case, then neither the corporation nor the organs will be convicted, and in the case of a bribery offense, which is severely harmful when it comes to corporations, the recipients of the bribe will not be convicted either.
The law applies to the state in this matter as well. The case law referred to state witness agreements as an "indispensable necessity" but recognized their necessity in certain circumstances (see, for example: Criminal Appeal 5825/97 Ovadia Shalom v. State of Israel, 55(2) 933, 947 (2001), the words of the Honorable Justice T. Strasberg-Cohen in paragraph 11 according to which"An arrangement with a criminal who is involved in an offense, according to which he will serve as a 'state witness,' is an indispensable necessity"). The cases in which it is appropriate to draw up a state-witness agreement and the manner in which the agreement was drafted were also anchored in the guidelines werea family appeal, the Attorney General's directive, and Directive No. 4.2201 Regarding a State Witness. The directive first establishes the rule: "The transformation of a criminal into a state witness will only be in cases where it is preferable for the public interest to bring another criminal to trial – an action that the prosecution will find difficult to do without the use of a state witness." Subsequently, the considerations for turning a person suspected of being involved in an offense into a state witness were determined, including: exhausting alternative investigative channels before signing the agreement; All available evidence; the evidentiary potential of the witness to provide; The status and centrality of the witness, the personality and credibility of the witness, the severity of the offense, and more.