Caselaw

Criminal Case (Jerusalem) 54589-02-17 State of Israel v. Oshri Sharon - part 110

May 31, 2026
Print

It is clear from Shkedi's statements in his interrogation that Knitork did not seek to hold a competition for the sake of appearance and protocol only, as the defense claimed, and that even if in retrospect it turned out that there were no additional procurement alternatives (and even without a question, Knitork knew that the offers submitted to it were improperly matched), from the outset Knitürk tried to find out alternative procurement sources and to receive price quotes, real offers.  In his testimony, Shkedi clarified that he did not say that this was an imaginary competition (p. 1858, paras. 19), that even in view of the reasoning of a single doubter, Knitork was entitled to hold a competition (p. 1859, s. 1860, paras. 11-13); that Kenitork "created real, professional and practical competition according to the standards it had at that point in time" (p. 1861, paras. 6-7) and that the receipt of quotes by other suppliers from the same source – Ultratrade – is also a competition that can benefit ELTA even if it is a competition whose intensity or influence is more limited (p. 1862, paras. 12-24, p. 1864, paras. 11-17).  These statements are consistent with the testimony of Knitürk regarding the possibilities that he sought to inquire about when he applied for quotes, and that, among other options, he also sought to examine the possibility that other providers could receive quotes from Altrade and offer Elta the servers located in Altrade at a better price (see paragraph 381 above, and the references there also to Shahar's testimony according to which Harel and Triple C could also receive quotes from Altrade).  Even if, after receiving price proposals, a loan alternative would have arisen, as a result of which Kinitork would have been required to return with the findings to the project or to raise a flag and contact more senior procurement officials, this does not change and the words of Shkedi, from which Wei asked to be built, do not indicate that the pricing was fictitious le-khatḥila.  In any event, this does not legitimize the coordination of the price proposals behind Elta's back.

  1. We should not trust Shachar's version in connection with the negotiation meeting – for the entirety of the matter, we will also relate to the version that Shachar first raised in his testimony, in relation to the negotiation meeting that took place on June 17, 2010.

As stated above, on June 17, 2010 – a few days after Harel and Triple C submitted the coordinated price quotes to Elta so that Wee's offer was the cheapest offer – a negotiation meeting was held at Elta.  The meeting was attended by Shkedi and Kenitork of Elta Procurement, Shahar and Oshri Movi, as well as the CEO of UltraTrade.  During the meeting, Wei agreed to give Elta a discount of about 15% compared to its previous offer, i.e., to reduce about $60,000 from the price (see paragraph 368 above).

Previous part1...109110
111...286Next part