Lavid denied that he was involved in the coordination or conduct between Wei and Harel in the Oranim project (p. 6587, paras. 2-11) and in coordination in general (with reference to N/97 - p. 6546, s. 20 - p. 6547, s. 8; p. 6450, s. 3-17). In the absence of concrete evidence to the contrary, his testimony must be accepted.
In addition, the evidence from which the defense sought to build with regard to Lapid's alleged involvement was the email message (N/99) in which Shachar forwarded to Lavid the draft of Harel's proposal that Gilad had sent him. No response from Lavid to this announcement was presented in a manner that could attest to his involvement. Beyond that. This is not an explicit and clear coordination correspondence on its face to someone who is not involved in the secret of the coordination (this, even if the civil appealers referred in their testimony to the very fact that the draft proposal was transferred between the suppliers and also to IBM with severity; for example, Peretz, p. 1798, s. 17-p. 1799, s. 10; Leshem, p. 2188, s. 24-p. 2189, s. 18; and see also Orshizer, p. 2601, s. 28, even though he referred to the matter in a general manner and without personal knowledge or acquaintance). This announcement in itself does not attest to the involvement of Lavid or IBM – which is not a competitor of the suppliers but rather the manufacturer that supplies them with the products in the vertical link – in coordinating the proposals. Far from it. The argument that the fact that IBM ultimately handed over a loan to the Oranim project (N/214) after it was Harel who began working in the face of a civil appeal on the project should also be rejected, indicates IBM's knowledge and involvement in the coordination in which Harel agreed to waive the project (para. 150 of Shohat's summaries). This is a speculative claim. It is sufficient that no real basis was laid for IBM to know about Harel's involvement with the project's personnel at the outset, or that Harel contacted IBM at some stage in connection with the deal, in order to drop the basis for the claim.
- At the end of the day, no real evidence was presented that IBM knew or was involved in coordinating the proposals for the Oranim project or that they could actually tie it to the coordination arrangement, let alone as a central party to it. In the absence of a real basis in this context, I have not found that there is any substance to the allegations of failure to investigate this matter and with regard to the Oranim project.
- Therefore, the allegations regarding IBM's alleged involvement in coordination in the Oranim project must be rejected, and these do not change the conclusion regarding the coordination arrangement that has been proven.
- Shohat's arguments for selective enforcement – Shochat argued that the filing of the indictment against him constituted in the circumstances an improper selective enforcement that justified the cancellation of the charge against him. In view of the conclusion that I reached above that Shochat should be acquitted due to doubt, the need to discuss this argument became redundant.
More than necessary, I will note that if Shohat's guilt had been proven at the required level, then there would have been no reason to accept his arguments for the cancellation of the indictment against him due to improper selective enforcement.