Criminal Case (Jerusalem) 54589-02-17 State of Israel v. Oshri Sharon - part 158

Matrix's claims that Shohat's activity in response to Balam Oranim was done outside the framework of his duties should not be accepted – Matrix's main claim in this context is that Shohat acted in contravention of an explicit order from his manager, Harush, not to participate in Balam Oranim (P/453 of September 11, 2011), where after Shkanevsky repeatedly asked Matrix for a price quote, Pinko asked if to "announce that we are not interested" and Harush was answered "positively", Shochat was a writer and his testimony that what was stated in the notice was not clear (p. 6808, paras. 2-3) was not convincing).  However, according to the Matrix method itself, Shohat's first e-mail message (N/450, N/450(1), N/456) containing a partial response that related to one of the types of servers required by the Oranim Communications Department, which came after the aforementioned correspondence, was sent with the permission and authority and with the opinion of Harush (para. 44 of the Matrix summaries).  Matrix's attempt to make a distinction and claim that "apparently", following a discussion between Harush and Shochat (p. 6899, paras. 4-12), it was decided to submit a proposal only for one of the components in the Oranim Bomb and not for the rest, is nothing more than a hypothesis.  This is not supported, certainly not in a real way, by evidence or testimonies.  Matrix did not even bother to testify on its behalf in the matter (and the same is true of the claim that it was possible to make a partial offer and win it, which is not anchored in the documents of the Defense Intelligence Committee).  Matrix further claimed that Shohat tried to hide the second email he sent to Schnevsky (P/132) – which was copied almost entirely from Shachar's coordination message to Shochat (P/146) – from the eyes of his superiors in the Matrix and in a deliberate manner.  This argument was also not adequately founded.  It is based on the assumption that in submitting the proposal, the subject of the second email, Shochat acted contrary to Harush's instructions.  We saw above that this is a mere hypothesis.  Indeed, unlike the first e-mail message (P/456), Shohat did not send his second e-mail message (P/132) to Pinko or to a joint e-mail box (quote) that allowed Matrix officials to view the bids submitted (p. 6855, paras. 20-27).  Shohat testified that the said email box was something new, that they were trying to put into the work at the time, which had not yet become permanent, and that if he did not send it to her, it was mere forgetfulness (p. 6882, paras. 11-19).  These things were not hidden.  Matrix did not lay a real evidentiary foundation in relation to its work procedures at the time.  Nor was it alleged that any additional actions could support an attempt to conceal it, whether in relation to the BLAM or in relation to participation in the online bidding that followed.  It was further argued that in preparing the proposal submitted by Shohat in the second email (P/132), Shohat did not make use of matrix systems and a configurator (which he used to prepare the first email, p. 6757, paras. 29-30), but rather copied what Shahar sent him.  This, too, does not lead to the conclusion that Shochat acted outside the framework of his position.  We discussed above the broad standard that was established in this matter (see paragraph 18 above).  In our case, Shochat acted to submit a price quote to the client under his care and responsibility, and in any case he should be considered as someone who acted in the course of fulfilling his duties.