As he testified, he did not price for the sake of appearance, and even if the level of competition was in certain circumstances, in his estimation, very limited, he did not conduct a competition for appearances. Peretz testified to this emphatically, in his own words:
"What's the question if I'm making cuts for the sake of appearance? The answer is no" (p. 1866, s. 24, underline added; p. 1644, s. 7);
"... The subject of competition has a whole hierarchy of hierarchy, so for every subject that you put me in a corner of appearance, so I tell you, there are levels of competition that are super competitive and super matter-of-fact, and there are levels where competition is, very limited, but it is not for appearances" (p. 1689, paras. 11-14; See also Ibid., p. 2137, paras. 6-20, "Approach suppliers in order to create real competition").
- Peretz further explained that the results of the pricing are never known in advance with certainty. As he testified: "Always as soon as we go out for pricing, we can have surprises, for example, one of the suppliers decides to commit suicide or decides to do everything to take our eyes off another supplier. You gave 50 percent, I give you 52 percent..." (p. 1688, paras. 4-6; This is even if in practice this did not happen in the cases before us in which coordination was made, p. 1699, paras. 9-16).
In other words, competition is the realm of uncertainty. There will always be surprises. As stated, as stated, Zeiger himself made similar remarks and insisted on this very possibility of doubt that he would decide to "cut the vein" in order to win the Galactica Combat Unit, as an explanation for the fact that the civil appeal was launched in Galactica and the concern expressed by Gilad following the removal of the Battle Galactica (P/224, paras. 36-44).
- Summary of a point: Indeed, in his testimony, Peretz expressed criticism of IAI's procurement procedures. Incidentally, he noted that in certain circumstances, the ability of procurement to bring about better offers through pricing between suppliers is, in his estimation, limited, sometimes too late, or even impossible. That was his assessment. In this context, he often used expressions as if even before the "game is over" and "everything is closed," because it was "artificial pricing." The defense tried to build from these. However, these expressions are intended to reflect Peretz's assessment of the degree of effectiveness of the pricing (see, for example, the use of the term "artificial pricing" in which he used to express his assessment that the pricing would not advance the civil appeal from a commercial-business perspective, p. 1755, paras. 11-15; See also p. 1642, paras. 22-23, from where it appears that he is referring to non-optimal competition). At the same time, the picture that emerged from his testimony as a whole was clear. Whatever his assessment may be, when it is necessary to conduct pricing and issue a request for price quotes, Peretz did so properly, not for the sake of appearance, and with the intention of maintaining true pricing, in order to exhaust the competition, and in order to incentivize the suppliers to give the citizens the best true offers, and not in order to receive fictitious and coordinated offers. The defendants improperly thwarted the pricing in a criminal bidding arrangement. Needless to say, the suppliers' assessments regarding the effectiveness of the pricing or the prospects of the pricing process cannot justify or qualify the coordination of bids.
- In the margins, it should be noted that in her summaries, Wei complained that the accuser did not bother to demand "dozens of papers" – which, according to his testimony, Peretz wrote to Leshem – regarding his assessment that the Balam proceeding would not be effective (para. 496 of Wee's summaries, with reference to Peretz's testimony, p. 1590, paras. 23-26; See also section 497 of the hook summaries in relation to the early stages of the project). This does not change anything. As stated above, the picture of the matter in relation to Peretz's assessments was extensively published in his testimony, and documents seized during the interrogation were also submitted in this regard. Moreover, the defendants were given an opportunity to receive a stream of additional documents, and they chose not to do so (for example, paragraph 10 of the decision of July 30, 2021, and see also paragraphs 6-9 there, and also pp. 1624, paras. 18-20; and see also the general hearing of the allegations of investigative failures in paragraph 1087 ff. below).
- The Additional Evidence – After the written and oral summaries of the parties were completed, the request of Keshet Wei and Oshri to attach certain e-mail correspondence (two threads) to which Peretz was a party as additional evidence was granted was granted (decision of June 24, 2024). This was done after a supplementary reference was submitted to this evidence and without Peretz's being asked to testify again on the matter (see paragraph 556 above; the evidence was attached as Appendices 1 and 2 to the motion of April 10, 2024).
The email correspondence that is the subject of the additional evidence was written in late 2012 and early 2013, that is, in the period following the last charges in the indictment and even after the investigation in our case became public and made public. An examination of the evidence shows that it is consistent with the overall picture that emerged from Peretz's testimony and does not support the defense's claim of competition for appearance or change the clear conclusion that Peretz made false claims in order to obtain true offers.