At a certain point, Yossi Schiffer (Schiffer) served as VP of sales at Wei, for a short period of time, at the end of which he was fired. Shachar was the one who brought Schiffer Levi (p. 3306, s. 1). This can attest to Shahar Bowie's status and the trust placed in him. In any event, even during the period when Schiffer was working at Wei and was formally Shahar's manager, Shahar continued to work directly with Oshri on civil appeal projects (p. 3501, paras. 23-30; this was also evident from Oshri's testimony, p. 4305, paras. 12-19; p. 4302, paras. 20-26, where he described that the attempt to bring Schiffer in was unsuccessful; and also p. 4304, Q. 23-26 where Oshri testified that it was Shahar, who did not improve, who handled the civil appeal and was responsible for it).
All the evidence indicates that Shachar was a representative of Wii vis-à-vis the ordering customers, including IAI. Requests for quotes from Vi were sent to him. He was the one who submitted the Wii quotes. He is the one with whom the customers, including IAI's procurement personnel, worked, in all matters relating to the price proposals, changes and amendments thereto, etc. (in the framework of the individual discussion of the charges below, ample evidence will be presented in this context). Shachar's suggestions obligated and acquitted Wei. Shahar had a certain room for discretion. to my happiness and as a certain part, and he acted as a rule in direct subordination
Insert Schiffer was unsuccessful; the salesman and he was the one who issued the quotes, similarly he acted directly subordinate to Oshri - a senior and dominant figure in Wei - and in fact in the same team with him, while he was in charge of submitting the quotes.
In this state of affairs, in accordance with the functional test, taking into account Shachar's role and authority, Shahar is an organ of Wei and his actions should be regarded as Wee's actions insofar as we are concerned with bids for the competitive proceedings that are the subject of the indictment. In the circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to impose liability on Wei for the concrete actions of Shachar that were carried out in the course of fulfilling his duties and for Wee's benefit in accordance with the criteria detailed above. The fact that Oshri himself was a party to some of the arrangements, as we shall see below, and that Vavi won some of the proceedings in respect of which the coordination arrangements were made, also clearly testifies that the acts were done in her favor.
- Wei and Oshri claimed that Shachar is not an organ of Wee. According to them, Shahar was a junior employee, a salesman (p. 3027, paras. 18-19); one of several salespeople at Bowie (p. 4557, s. 4-5; see also p. 3027, s. 20-23), in which about 60-70 employees worked at the time (p. 4300, s. 17-23); that Shachar's manager was Schiffer (p. 3305, and that Shachar himself did not participate in Wee's management meetings, was not a member of the company's management and was not a director of the company (p. 4440, paras. 9-12); that he was never authorized to sign with the company, and as Shahar himself testified, he did not formally make management decisions in the company (p. 3302, paras. 8-10). It was argued that, as a rule, junior employees, such as salespeople, should not be regarded as organs of the corporation. However, these claims ignore the picture that emerged from the totality of the evidence regarding Shachar's status and his role in particular with regard to price quotes, including as someone who worked directly with Oshri - who was a senior and central figure in Wei and part of the time its CEO - and while the two operated as a single team in which Shahar was in charge of submitting the price quotes. Presenting him as a junior and as someone who is remote and does not take part in the decision-making is inconsistent with the evidence, at least in all that is stated in the price quotes for the competitive proceedings that are the subject of the indictment. Shachar's presentation as aforesaid is also inconsistent with Oshri herself's testimony (p. 4860, paras. 23-25, where he referred to Shahar's independence, for example, with regard to the sale of equipment to Harel).
- Wei and Oshri further argued that in view of the fact that Shachar began his work at Wei in February 2009, the meeting in which he participated in the first indictment, prior to May 5, 2009, took place only a few months after he began his work and within the period of probationary and training that was set for him (para. 2, N/328). Therefore, it was argued that Shahar could not be considered an organiser for the purpose of the first charge, and that this also applies to the other charges. In this context, it was further argued that Shachar testified that it took him a period of about six months to "understand who is against whom" (p. 3312, s. 11, and see also the testimony of Shachar, who had difficulty integrating into Wei during the first period, inter alia, that he did not have high-level technological knowledge and that as a result he did not feel comfortable and as part of the company, p. 3334, s. 26 - p. 3335, s. 8; See also p. 4303, s. 7-4304, s. 3, 16-22). These arguments do not change that. They do not take into account that Shahar was recruited by Oshri on the basis of past professional knowledge, on the basis of significant experience working with IAI, in a similar format, and together with Oshri as a team, with Shahar in charge of the price quotes and Oshri on the technical aspect. Nor was a foundation laid for the fact that, in the circumstances of the case, he did not have the authority and responsibility from the outset in all that was stated in the position and in the submission of bids for a civil appeal and activity against it. Wei and Oshri also referred to the fact that Shachar confirmed in his testimony that Oshri would never have agreed to Shahar distributing projects as attributed in the first indictment (P. 3342, paras. 1-8) and that for this reason as well, Shahar should not be considered an organ of Wee. However, we noted above the clear impression that Shachar tried in his testimony to reduce Oshri's share in the privilege, to adapt his answers so as to assist Oshri and sometimes to automatically confirm what the defense offered him (as can also be seen from what is mentioned here).
Even the claims that by the end of 2009 it was someone else at Weeway, Shirley Stampler, who handled a civil appeal and not Shachar, are not to be accepted. From the evidence brought it emerged that during 2009 Shahar also handled a civil appeal (e.g., P/289, P/378, P/291 regarding the price quotes that are the subject of the second indictment; and see also P. 3313, paras. 20-22). Even from the correspondence from the end of 2009, from which Wei and Oshri asked to be built, and within which Shachar sought to assist Shirley so that a certain transaction would be credited to Wii in her favor (P/277), it clearly emerges that Oshri saw Shachar as the person handling a civil appeal and that it was Shahar - and not Shirley - who was the professional and the one who was knowledgeable about the details and the conduct of the civil appeal (ibid., in the correspondence of 12:28 p.m., and also at p. 3314, paras. 12-26; and from the claims that Shahar concealed from Oshri the help he gave Shirley in this regard, It is not possible to study for other matters).
- Wei and Oshri argued that in a civil appeal, salespeople, such as Shahar, were not perceived as having the authority to charge the company. In this context, they sought to build on the testimony of Israel Peretz, head of server procurement and communications at Maman (Peretz). However, an examination of Peretz's testimony clearly shows that salespeople were authorized to give price quotes (p. 1693, para. 6, p. 1694, para. 8) and that what was stated in the testimony in relation to Peretz's appeals to higher echelons was made when it was a matter of engagement or dealing with the "strategic level" that required it (p. 1692, paras. 4-7, p. 1694, paras. 1-6).
- Wei and Oshri claimed that Shachar hid from Moshri and the company various actions he took in order to examine employment opportunities outside of Wee, and that for this reason he should not be considered an organ of Wee.
Indeed, on the factual level, the evidence presented shows that at the end of 2009, and even during his first year of employment at Wee, Shahar examined the possibility of establishing a joint venture in the field of gaming together with Schiffer and Jack Mordechai from a civil appeal (N/276, pp. 3305, 9-18, and see also N/105, p. 3306, paras. 9-15). This project did not come to fruition. Oshri testified that he did not know about Shachar's experience in real time, because he only found out about it in retrospect, at the time of the hearing, and it is clear from his testimony that his grievance towards Shahar in this context stemmed mainly from the fact that in his opinion the very fact that he was engaged in another venture shows that Shahar was not entirely involved in sales for Wii (p. 4322, s. 18 - p. 4324, s. 14). During the first half of 2010, Shahar sent resumes on several occasions to various parties in order to examine job opportunities elsewhere (N/280, N/281, p. 3337, S. 26 - P. 3338, S. 18, where Shahar referred to the difficulties of his integration into Wei at the time and his sense of non-belonging). Zeiger testified that he wanted to bring Shahar to work at Harel and that at a certain point there were contacts between him and Shahar on the matter (p. 5486, s. 14 - p. 5491, s. 12). At the same time, it should be noted that the testimonies indicate that the transfer of salespeople from one company to another is not an exception in the field and that it occurs relatively frequently (Zeiger's testimony, at p. 5492, paras. 22-5493, para. 6; and Divrei Shahar, at p. 3336, paras. 1-2).