Oshri's conduct, as proven in the second and third charges, also undermines his version. In the second indictment (Blam Indra), Oshri was a party (hidden) to explicit coordination correspondence (and a party to additional correspondence) in which Shahar sent Harel's people the prices that Harel must state in the offer she would submit to Elta. We saw there that Oshri tried to distance himself by arguing – similar to his claim in the Oranim case now being discussed – that he believed that the correspondence revolved around procurement between suppliers and not about coordinating the prices of the bids that the other suppliers would submit to Elta, as is explicitly stated from the text. The argument was rejected (see paragraph 148 ff. above; and see also paragraph 249 ff. regarding the third charge). Oshri was therefore aware and involved in previous coordination, and in any case he understood very well that talking to competing suppliers in preparation for submitting bids to Balam and for the purpose of "closing the competition" means: coordinating the prices of the bids (and in this regard I do not need the evidence referred by the accuser in relation to the coordinations that were not included in the charges before me, including the accuser's claims in relation to the Ankor case, P/214, paras. 169-170, 185-200; and the cases are the subject of P/600, P/598).
Statements made by Oshri himself during his interrogation also show clear support for the fact that he fully understood what Schiffer had written to him. During his interrogation, Oshri was initially presented with the concrete price coordination correspondence that Shachar sent to the other suppliers on September 13, 2011, i.e., a few days after Schiffer's email to Oshri dated September 7, 2011 about "closing the corner of the competition" (P/147, P/148, and P/146; Oshri would not have written about these application correspondence). At this stage of the investigation, Oshri has not yet been presented with the email in question sent to him by Schiffer. Oshri tried to distance himself in general from the conduct with false claims that he was not involved in the project and in front of Shahar (P/215, paras. 119, paras. 205-206). When asked about the concrete correspondence that Shahar sent, he offered various explanations in an attempt to minimize their meaning, but in the end he explained the coordination correspondence by stating that "... Shahar wants the deal. He will try to make sure that he does not commit suicide over the prices. What he actually does, I don't know. If I were Shachar, I would ask on a friendly level that they do not commit suicide, but each one should do what he wants" (P/215, paras. 188-192). Oshri explains that in order to ensure the winning deal, we need to make sure that the other suppliers do not "commit suicide" – we would not submit bids with prices that are too low. According to him, he would have done it himself. This, too, supports the obvious conclusion that Oshri fully understood that "closing the competition" with competing suppliers, which Schiffer reported to him, means understanding with the other suppliers regarding the price of the bids they will submit, and that they will not be too low (and what he said earlier in the announcement in an unconvincing attempt to uproot their meaning from the coordination correspondence, for example, paras. 156-164, does not change the rule; An echo of the aforementioned fear of low prices also arose from Oshri's testimony, who tried to explain that he understood what Shifer wrote, so that Shifer or Shahar spoke to the other suppliers and explained to them that even if they submitted offers cheaper than those of "dumping" hooks, the customer, Maman, would return to Levi, demanding a price reduction (as arose in other contexts), and that the other suppliers understood this; p. 5050, paras. 2-6; In this scenario as well, it can harm Wii and its profitability and explain the logic of coordination).
- The conclusion that arises is that Oshri's claims and his version should be rejected and it should be determined that he knew in real time, during the proceedings of the Oranim Police, of the arrangement that was made between Wei (through Schiffer and Shahar) and the other suppliers to "close the competition". In other words, the competitors will not submit lower bids than those of Wii (while in addition to what is required, it should be noted that support for things also arises from Shahar's testimony. Shahar testified that he sent the correspondence with the concrete prices to the other suppliers (P/146, P/147, P/148, about which Oshri does not write) in order to win the project (P. 2860, S. 25) and that Oshri knew about his conduct (P. 2863, S. 27-32); As stated, the matter arises from P/504 from real time).
- The picture that emerges, as stated, is that Oshri knew in real time about the arrangement made between Wei and competing suppliers to "close the competition", while he is the senior party on Wee's part, who is personally involved in the project, and when he is working to promote Wee's moves, formulate its proposal and promote its submission with knowledge of the arrangement and in accordance with it. In doing so, Oshri turned himself to the side of the settlement. In these circumstances, we are not dealing with a conviction by default as an argument that arose in the Wii summaries (para. 303 ibid.; see and compare: the Ben Dror (District) case at paragraphs 660-664; the Borowitz case at paragraph 76, where it was held that a person is considered a party to a restrictive arrangement when he is a partner in it in one way or another and when it applies to him).
- Before concluding the hearing in Oshri's case, we will address additional arguments. In his testimony, Oshri raised additional claims intended to distance him from the email about the "closure of the competition" sent him by Schiffer and to minimize the weight of the matter. One claim related to Schiffer. It was argued that Schiffer was not involved in the transaction and the price quote at all (para. 295 of the Wee summaries), that Oshri did not so much "tell" Schiffer and his updates (e.g., p. 5060, paras. 4-15), that Schiffer tried to glorify his work and attribute to himself involvement in transactions to which he was not connected (ibid.), that Oshri tried to remove him from handling the Oranim project, and that down the road, After about ten months, he was even fired from Vi due to dissatisfaction with his performance (p. 4551, paras. 7-11, N/343). These arguments cannot be changed. The evidence from real time shows that Schiffer was involved in the Oranim project on the part of Wei (together with Shahar) both at the stage of the UAV and in the online pricing stage (for example, p. 4557, paras. 14-18). During his interrogation, and even before Oshri was presented with the incriminating email that Schiffer had sent him, Oshri tried to distance himself from the project and claimed that he (Oshri) was not involved and that it was actually Schiffer who handled and was involved with Shachar (P/215, paras. 204-206). This reflects on the weight of the claims regarding Schipper's status, which came after Oshri was presented with the e-mail message that Schiffer sent him. Either way, the email sent by Schiffer to Oshri clearly refers to the direct communication and communication made with the competitors to "close the corner of the competition", both by Schiffer (vis-à-vis A.M.T.) and by Shahar (vis-à-vis Harel), and subsequently concrete price coordination was made. Oshri's claims do not change the clear conclusion that he knew about the arrangement. The picture of the coordination clearly emerges from the written evidence from a real time, nor does the fact that Schiffer was summoned to testify in order to change the circumstances of the case. Oshri also claimed in his testimony that he did not know who he was, and that Schnitzer Schiffer noted that he had spoken to him "to close the corner of the competition" and that "there would be no problem with him" (p. 4557, s. 9, p. 4558, s. 6-13). This is not the impression that came from Oshri's words during his interrogation with the Authority. During his interrogation, Oshri stated that he knew about the contact with EMET from the email message that Schiffer sent him. Hence, at the very least, he knew that Schnitzer was a representative of EMET. In any event, it is clear from the email that this is a conversation and communication between the people of Wei (Schiffer and Shahar) and the competing suppliers (EMET and Harel). Oshri did not claim otherwise. His arguments focused on how he understood the content of the interaction with the other suppliers – claims that were rejected – and not on the fact that he did not understand that it was dealing with other suppliers. In any case, even the claim that he did not know Wischnitzer cannot be changed.
- In view of the aforesaid rule, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Oshri was a party to the arrangement regarding the Oranim Patrol.
Was Shohat a party to the coordination arrangement in the Oranim Naval Division?
- We will now address in more detail the question of Shohat's involvement in the alleged coordination arrangement. To this end, we will present in detail the relevant evidence of Shohat's involvement in the coordination process.
- We have seen above that on September 4, 2011 and September 5, 2011, Shkanevsky sent Matrix the request for price proposals, which is at the same time as he contacted other suppliers (see paragraph 638 above).
- On September 7, 2011, the e-mail correspondence between Schiffer and Oshri was made – that is, internal correspondence within Wii – which we referred to at length above (P/504, P/283, N/346). Schiffer updated Oshri on "closing the corner of the competition" against both Vischnitzer (EMET) and Harel (via Shahar). In this email correspondence – or in other correspondence from dates prior to September 13, 2011, the day on which Shekanevsky requested that the proposals be submitted to the Oranim Police Department – there is no reference to the slaughterer or the Matrix and to coordinate with them.
In her summary, the accuser referred to the fact that according to the documentation in the output of the calls from Cellcom, Shahar and Shohat spoke on 6 September 2011 for more than half an hour (P/587). No evidence was presented as to the content of the conversation. Shochat and Shahar both testified that they had a close friendship, including that they talked to each other several times a day, also about personal matters, and that they used to meet often, several times a week (Shohat, p. 6724, s. 23-33, p. 6725, s. 4-7, s. 15 - p. 6726, s. 3, p. 240, s. 121-129; Shahar, p. 3558, s. 24-26, P. 3579, paras. 2-4). In this situation, the fact that a conversation took place on the said date does not constitute significant evidentiary support for the alleged coordination.