Oshri - Section 48 of the Competition Law - Officer's Liability
- As part of the eleventh indictment now under discussion, Oshri was also charged with an offense under Section 48 of the Competition Law.
- For the reasons detailed above in the discussion at paragraph 48 in connection with the previous charges (and see also: paragraphs 216-218 above) – here too it was proven that Oshri fulfilled the elements of the offense under section 48 of the Competition Law with respect to the eleventh charge and the date on which it was committed: Oshri was an active manager of Wey; Wei was convicted of the offense of a party to a restrictive arrangement in the charge here; And Oshri was not able to prove that he did what was necessary for the purpose of supervision and to prevent violations of the Competition Law.
The Twelfth Charge
The Twelfth Charge: NetApp Shelf to Elbit/Elop - September 2011
- The twelfth indictment was directed at Shahar, Wei, Gilad and Harel. According to the indictment, during the month of September 2011, Elbit Industries Electro-Optic Systems filed a tax appeal (Elop) requesting quotes from a number of companies to expand an existing storage system (Elop). The aforementioned defendants are credited with being a party to the arrangement whereby Harel would submit an offer higher than Wee's offer in order to allow Levi to win the Levy Eloop. According to the allegations, the parties submitted their proposals in accordance with the arrangement when Wei was selected to perform the Elope Campaign in the sum of approximately $60,000. It is also attributed to the aforementioned defendants that they presented Elaup with a false representation according to which their proposals were submitted independently, without consultation, coordination or contact with another bidder, and in any event they did not disclose the fact of coordination between them (the misrepresentation), and that based on the misrepresentation, Aloup's opinion regarding the validity of the bids was accepted and Wei's bid was accepted as a winner. Oshri is credited with not being supervised and did everything possible to prevent an offense under the Competition Law.
Shahar and Gilad's case ended, as stated above, in plea bargains. Shachar was convicted of the offense of a party to a restrictive arrangement in relation to Balam Elaup and the offense of fraudulent receipt, without attributing aggravating circumstances to him. Gilad was convicted of the offense of being a party to a restrictive arrangement without being charged with the offense of fraudulent receipt. This does not negate the possibility of convicting the companies of the offenses attributed to them, to the extent that guilt is proven at the required level (see the discussion at paragraphs 201-214 above).