The main purpose of drafting a state's witness agreement is to bring the other offenders to justice. The more serious the crime, or the greater the number of criminals, the more interested there is in granting immunity to one of the offenders, in order to incriminate all the others. In Criminal Appeal 5975/14 Ibrahim Darwish Agbaria v. State of Israel (published in Nevo, 2015), the Honorable Justice Y. Amit addressed this matter, in paragraph 18 of his judgment:
"Much has been written about the institution of the state's witness, and many times it has been said in case law that this institution is an indispensable necessity...As a rule, the state does not usually sign a state witness agreement with the main perpetrator in the affair... But every rule has an exception on its side...In exceptional cases, it is even possible to consider drafting a state-witness agreement with the main perpetrator in the absence of the possibility of prosecuting suspects of serious offenses, had it not been for the agreement. The case law also recognized the circumstances that justify drafting a state-witness agreement, even though the witness is the main perpetrator. Thus, for example, where this allowed the prosecution to "decipher a long list of serious and serious offenses committed by a series of people" (High Court of Justice 4085/03 Kamal Turk v. The Attorney General [published in Nevo] at paragraph 4 (June 16, 2003))."
(Emphasis added – M.A., 3).
Therefore, if it becomes clear in the main proceeding that if it were not for the immunity received by the organs, it would not have been possible to prosecute the recipients of the bribe (as well as the defendant), then the conviction of the five defendants out of the recipients of the bribe (defendants 2-6, when the proceedings against defendant 7 were delayed), for the offense of bribery, which is a particularly serious offense, is certainly a proper consideration for the prosecution.
As for the accuser's argument that the purpose of convicting the corporation is that the corporation will condemn and remove from it an organ that has committed an offense, this is indeed one of the purposes of imposing criminal liability on corporations, but this is not the main goal, the main goal is to prevent the commission of offenses in advance. The Honorable Vice-President, Justice A. Rubinstein, noted this in the Melisron case, in paragraph 112 of his judgment: