2.1 The Defendant's Claims
2.1.a. The Defendant's Claims Regarding Immunity from Prosecution
The defendant claims that the 2005 agreement with Aaronson granted her immunity that the state was not entitled to cancel when she signed a state-witness agreement with Aaronson in 2005. However, since this matter involves factual questions such as when Siemens Israel learned of the state's witness agreement, the defendant agreed to leave this question until the conclusion of the main proceeding and after hearing testimonies on this question.
The defendant's main legal argument is that even if Siemens is not directly protected by virtue of the 2005 agreement, it is protected by the very state witness agreements signed with H.H. Aharonson Weiss and Hirsch. According to her, since the accuser attributes criminal liability to Siemens Israel by virtue of the criminal actions and thinking of Aaronson, Weiss and Hirsch, by virtue of section 23(a) of the Penal Law, which deals with the liability of a corporation in criminal offenses by virtue of offenses committed by the corporation's organs (known as, hereinafter: the Organs Theory), it is by virtue of that doctrine that Siemens Israel should be attributed the immunity granted to the organs.
According to the defendant, if we accept the state's argument, for the purpose of discussing the preliminary arguments, according to which Aharonson, Weiss and Hirsch were members of Siemens Israel, then by virtue of the doctrine of organs, the immunity that the three received from prosecution should be attributed to Siemens Israel in the framework of the state witness agreements they signed in 2014.
In her arguments, the defendant discussed extensively, in writing and orally, the theory of organs in general, and the corporation's criminal liability in particular, and argued that the theory of organs, by virtue of which it is possible, under Israeli law, to attribute criminal liability to the corporation, is based on identity and identification between the organ and the corporation. Zehut becomes, according to her, the two into one, while the corporation's responsibility, which stems from the actions and thoughts of the organ, is an additional responsibility. According to the defendant, by virtue of this identity and identification, the immunity granted to Aaronson Weiss and Hirsch also applies to Siemens Israel.