Criminal Case (Jerusalem) 54589-02-17 State of Israel v. Oshri Sharon - part 160

Training and internal enforcement actions taken by Matrix - Matrix presented various evidence in this regard.  Goldstein, Matrix's CEO, stated in his interrogation that the company views violations of competition law with severity, that the matter was clarified in sales meetings, that orderly training was carried out, and that in the company's daily organizational culture, it is known that coordination offenses are forbidden (N/460, paras. 795-799).  Matrix also submitted documents attesting to the fact that it had taken actions to prevent violations of the Competition Law, even on the dates prior to the settlement attributed in the eleventh indictment (September 2011) and before the opening of the open investigation (May 2012).  The evidence presented by Matrix (within the scope of N/462) included: an internal enforcement procedure that was distributed to Matrix Group managers in February 2010 (and its reading certificates); a presentation given to managers at the Matrix Group by Adv. Ronit Amir Yaniv on the subject of "Antitrust is Permitted and Forbidden" from February 2012 (and confirmation of attendance at the lecture); an updated internal enforcement procedure distributed to managers in February 2013 (and reading approvals thereof); and a presentation by Adv. Boaz Golan, Matrix's attorney, on the subject of antitrust from June 2014 (and confirmations to attend the lecture).  These included explanations of the prohibitions set forth in the Competition Law, demonstrations of prohibited actions, the company's position that views any violation of the provisions of the Competition Law seriously and emphasizes the importance of ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Law, and a call to examine in advance any case in which doubt or hesitation arises.  Indeed, as the accuser claims, it appears from what was submitted that most of the aforementioned actions were not carried out at the level of salespeople (Shochat confirmed his participation only in a lecture from June 2014, N/455, p. 6849, paras. 8-16; in this lecture the salespeople participated).  At the same time, Shochat testified that in 2011 as well, of course, they knew about the prohibitions, even though only after the incident did the training become an "obsession" (p. 6861, paras. 15-30, in a way that can be consistent with Goldstein's words above).  It seems that there is also substance to the accuser's claim that it has not been proven that Matrix established supervision and control mechanisms (and see in this regard in paragraph 117 above) even if it is even fragile that even if more could have been done, Matrix actually took actions to prevent offenses under the Competition Law.  These matters are usually examined in the framework of the hearing of an offense under section 48 of the Competition Law – Officer's Liability – and the duty of supervision, and in the framework of the examination of whether the officer did everything possible to supervise and prevent an offense in the corporation (see paragraphs 20-23 above, in the previous version, the officer was required to show that he took all reasonable measures to ensure that the law was upheld).  In our case, Goldstein, the CEO of Matrix, was not prosecuted for an offense under section 48 of the Competition Law, and it can be assumed that in this context, Matrix's aforementioned actions were taken into account.  In any event, as it has been ruled, actions taken by a corporation to prevent the commission of offenses may in certain cases constitute a consideration on the question of whether to apply the doctrine of organs and convict the corporation: "... The fact that the activity of the organ, which is the basis of the indictment, was carried out without the knowledge of some of the organs or in deviation from authority, and all the more so in contravention of explicit instructions, may constitute a consideration against the application of the organ theory...  Therefore, to the extent that it is found that preventive actions were taken in the corporation (in the form of educating the employees and/or monitoring and supervising their activities) against the commission of the offense, this will serve as a consideration for avoiding his criminal conviction" (Criminal Case (Tel Aviv District) 23842-11-11 State of Israel v. Levy, paragraph 333, paragraph of the judgment of the Honorable Judge H. Kabub (November 19, 2013)).