The defendant further argues that one of the main goals of attributing criminal liability to a corporation by means of the theory of organs is to prevent the recurrence of the offense and to remove those organs from it. According to the defendant, if the state is allowed to conduct a state-witness transaction with an organization, the same organization by virtue of which a corporation is criminally liable, and immunity granted to it will not apply to the corporation, this will constitute an incentive for the corporation to embrace the organ that has gone wrong instead of denying it from the corporation. The defendant further claims that this situation creates a conflict of interest between the organization, which drafts the state's witness agreement, which will try to save his skin and his associates, and the corporation.
2.1.c. The Defendant's Arguments Regarding Selective Enforcement
The defendant's argument regarding selective enforcement is, in summary, that the three bribe-givers: Aharonson, Weiss and Hirsch, who even benefited from the fruits of the offenses they committed, were granted absolute immunity, and at the same time, an indictment was filed against Siemens Israel, whose liability is an annex by virtue of the Organics Doctrine, attributing full responsibility to it for the actions of the three. According to the defendant, the three tests of selective enforcement are met. The first, which speaks of the equality group, takes place in its entirety. The defendant claims that this is not only an issue of equals within an equal group, but also of the defendant who is identified with the organs that were dismissed. The second test, which allows for legitimate partial enforcement, also does not apply. Because, according to the defendant, the defendant's responsibility is the ancillary liability, while at least Aaronson and Hirsch also received significant benefits from the bribes (Aharonson in his hat as a shareholder in Siemens Israel, as a director and manager in Siemens Israel, and both by virtue of their holding of the bribe money that they did not have time to transfer to the recipients of the bribe). As to the third condition, of prima facie evidence of selective enforcement, the defendant argues that these arise from the legal construction, according to which the responsibility is attributed to Siemens Israel by virtue of the actions of the three, but the immunity that Siemens Israel received in the framework of the state's witness agreements is not attributed to Siemens Israel.