In large parts of the testimony, it was evident that Shahar was trying to adapt his answers to the interest of the defendants, and so that they would find themselves in what he understood to be the answer to which the defense was aiming. On more than one occasion he almost automatically confirmed what the defense offered him, in an unconvincing manner, sometimes with a deviation from the clear words he had said in his statements during the interrogations of the Competition Authority and in a manner that sometimes was inconsistent with documents, sometimes but not long after he testified that he did not remember the incident at all, and more than once he retracted his statement immediately afterwards in response to the court's questions, etc. (e.g., p. 3273, s. 14 - p. 3274, s. 22; p. 3142, s. 4 - p. 3143, s. 17).
Shachar's testimony clearly showed his desire to benefit the defendants, his friends. In his words, "I'm sitting here and angry... I am personally going to pay a very high price [in light of the conviction]... And I very much hope that my friends who are being tried here will come out less than me" (p. 3467, paras. 11-14).
In view of the impression that arose from the testimony and in view of the discrepancies between it and what was stated in the statements, the court allowed the accuser to take the line of interrogation that she adopted, in some parts almost cross-examination (p. 2623, paras. 15-17). The court has also been required more than once to place Shachar on his duty to testify truthfully, regardless of the attempt to identify the interest to which the questioner is directed (p. 2765, paras. 24 - p. 2766, paras. 12; p. 3517, paras. 5-14; and see also: p. 2956, paras. 3-15).
With all that was said about Oshri, the impression was that Shahar was trying in his testimony to minimize Oshri's role and the extent of his knowledge and extent of his involvement in the events. His testimony in relation to Oshri often contradicted what he said in his interrogations at the Competition Authority regarding Oshri's knowledge and involvement in the acts that are the subject of some of the charges. Oshri was Shachar's manager and the two had a friendly and professional relationship and a long-standing acquaintance (and this is not to say that at the time of giving the testimony they worked in various companies that could be in competition between them, in order to change, p. 2956, s. 24 - p. 2957, s. 1). It was evident that Shahar felt uncomfortable with Oshri and that in his testimony he sought to assist him and to minimize his part in the actions (for example, his personal appeal to Oshri at p. 3355, paras. 3-17). Wei and Oshri argued in their summaries that it was precisely the words that Shachar said in his interrogations in which he incriminated Oshri should not be given weight. In this context, we referred to the testimony of Shachar according to which at the interrogation stage he received legal advice according to which to the extent that Shachar said in his interrogations that he acted in accordance with the instructions he received from Oshri who was his director, it would be to the best of Shachar (p. 2737, s. 21 - p. 2738, s. 3; p. 2765, paras. 7-9), even though Shachar later testified that he was not instructed to say anything false and that he said in his interrogation what he said in accordance with what was indeed happening. p. 2766, s. 17, p. 2767, s. 12; p. 2992, s. 26 - p. 2993, s. 6; In this context, Wei and Oshri also referred to section 49 of the Competition Law, which deals with the protection of an employee who acted on the instructions of the employer). Therefore, they argued that Shachar's statements regarding Oshri were weightless. I cannot accept these arguments. An examination of Shachar's statements reveals that Shachar did not deal with Oshri guilt in a sweeping manner and did not attribute to him involvement and knowledge in every matter. On the contrary. In his interrogations, Shahar knew how to distinguish between cases in which he acted alone and cases in which he acted with Oshri's knowledge or involvement. When the matter was presented to him in the testimony, Shahar confirmed that what was stated in his interrogations reflected the state of things as he remembered it (p. 2772, paras. 9-14; p. 2773, paras. 9-14; p. 2778, paras. 8-15, and the references to the interrogations that preceded each section). The above is sufficient to project on the claims of Wei and Oshri regarding the weight of Shachar's statements that complicate Oshri. In addition, although during the course of his testimony Shachar tried to minimize Oshri's part, sometimes he replied that he did not remember or did not know, unlike what was stated in his statements, sometimes he testified positively that Oshri did not know, but more than once later on, after such reservations and denials, he testified in relation to one event or another - ostensibly relieved of the pressure in which he was under investigation or out of fear of conviction - that Oshri knew. He was involved, and even though he updated Oshri in everything he did, or at least in a large part of the things (p. 2676, paras. 21-23).