As stated above, Wei and Oshri claimed that these attempts by Shachar to examine possibilities outside of Wei, against the background of his difficulties in adjusting during the first period at Wei, are a "mask of concealment" from Moshri and society. However, all of this does not have a real impact on Shahar's actions with regard to the submission of price quotes and his conduct within the framework of the competitive proceedings that are the subject of the indictment. They do not detract from the conclusion that Shahar acted in the requests for a quote in the framework of the performance of his position, within the limits of his authority, in favor of Wei - who, according to the attribution of the alleged coordination, was intended to enable her to win the motions for a quotation in a significant part of the charges - and at the very least, that he did not act against her. Therefore, this does not change the conclusion that Shahar was an organist of Wei.
This is even more true in relation to the company that Shachar founded together with Jack Mordechai of the Civil Appeal, and which was claimed to be competing with Wee (p. 1212, s. 21 - p. 1213, s. 14). This is because the company was established at or near the beginning of 2019, many years after the events that are the subject of the indictment (p. 1125, paras. 23-24, p. 1174, paras. 1-7; and also many years after Oshri himself left Wei at the end of 2013, p. 4265, paras. 10-11).
- Another argument raised by Wei and Oshri regarding Shachar's status as an organist is that Shahar acted in contravention of Oshri's no-bid policy and contrary to his instructions, and that for this reason he should not be considered an organ of Wei as well.
At the basis of this is the argument regarding Oshri's no-bid policy . Oshri testified that in certain cases in which it was clear to him in advance that Leva had no chance of winning his position, it was that Wei should refrain from submitting a price quote. Oshri testified that these cases include, inter alia, a situation in which he understood from the customer that another supplier had characterized the solution for the customer and that the customer was already intending to purchase the solution from that supplier (p. 4318, paras. 17-23; p. 4320, paras. 10-19); when the manufacturer informed him that he was already working with another supplier in order to provide the solution for the customer in the particular project (p. 4319, s. 19 - p. 4320, s. 4); when it recognized that the competitive procedure was "tailor-made" as it was written (p. 4319, paras. 3-10) so that another supplier had already constructed the bill of quantities and the manner in which it intended to implement the solution (p. 4350, paras. 11-12); when the manufacturer asked him to do so, or when he understood that there was no added value in the transaction (p. 4318, paras. 4-13); When Wee's technological solution did not match the customer's existing system (p. 4352, paras. 11-23), etc. In such cases, Oshri's policy was, according to the claim, not to participate and not to submit a bid at all - in his words: no-bid - in order not to waste time on preparing a price quote, with all that this entails, in lost transactions and to optimize the use of time (p. 4319, s. 12-18; p. 4318, s. 23 - p. 4319, s. 10) so that value would fight with all its might in places and transactions where it has added value. When it comes to value opportunities, it identified value opportunities at the beginning and invested in building the solution for the client (ibid., p. 4327, paras. 2-10). Wei and Oshri presented examples of cases - which do not relate to the competitive proceedings that are the subject of the indictment - in which Oshri instructed not to submit a price quote because he believed that the escort had no chance of winning and that submitting a bid in their context was not worth the effort (Collection of Email Correspondence - N/329, e.g.: v. Ministry of Justice, pp. 1-3 of the collection; p. 4344, paras. 11-4345, para. 17; vs. Ashdod Port, pp. 4-5 for the collection, p. 4345, s. 21 - p. 4346, s. 14; In connection with Zoglowek, pp. 6-7 of the collection; p. 4346, s. 18 - p. 4347, s. 22; v. Fandango, pp. 9-10 for the collection, p. 4348, s. 5-24; vs. QSM, pp. 19-20 for the collection, p. 4349, s. 13, - p. 4350, s. 27; vs. Afcon, pp. 32-33 for the collection, p. 4359, s. 1-15; with regard to Citrix, pp. 38-39 for the collection, where Oshri also noted that a proposal should be submitted if this would affect the relationship with the customer; It should be noted that the collection that was presented included only one example in relation to correspondence with IAI, ibid., at p. 49, There, Oshri wrote to Peretz of the Civil Appeal that submitting a proposal is a waste of time; In his testimony, Oshri did not know how to explain in a real way the circumstances of the case, and the questions he was asked had a prominent dimension of the instruction, p. 4360, paras. 11-4361, para. 13).