Levi and Harel, who remain in this indictment, are attributed an offense of a party to a restrictive arrangement under section 47(a)(1) of the Law as drafted at the relevant time, together with sections 2(a), 2(b)(1), 2(b)(3), 4 and 55a(b) of the Competition Law, as well as the offense of fraudulent receipt under aggravated circumstances, under section 415 of the Penal Law. In relation to the companies, the indictment refers to section 23(a)(2) of the Penal Law. In the indictment, Oshri was attributed the responsibility of officers by virtue of Section 48 of the Competition Law.
Discussion
- The focus of the indictment in question is a procurement proceeding of Elop, which is a subsidiary of Elbit Systems (Elbit). The procurement revolved around equipment for NetApp storage systems, as an addition and expansion to an existing storage system.
- The figure relevant to this indictment is Yael Lavi (Lavi). Lavi, who is also a lawyer, held various positions at Elop and Elbit at the relevant times. This included everything related to the procurement of IT and technological infrastructures at Alop (p. 1287, paras. 5-23). Lavi was the one who coordinated the procurement process that is the subject of the indictment in question. Ronen Noy (Noy) Mantap also referred in his testimony to the facts relating to this charge. Shahar and Oshri also testified in relation to the indictment in question.
- The price quotes in relation to which the alleged coordination was made were submitted to Alop in September 2011. The offers revolved around the purchase of items as an addition and extension to an existing storage system made by NetApp. The defense raised claims based on a storage system that Elbit purchased from Wii in late 2010. In view of these arguments, we will address at the outset the facts that preceded the acquisition of the subject of the indictment.
Late 2010 - Elbit purchased NetApp storage system hooks
- At the end of 2010, Elbit Moy purchased a central storage system from NetApp. Previously, Elbit used storage systems manufactured by EMC.
This is a large transaction in the scope of a little over NIS 1 million (see order dated December 22, 2010 - N/368, also included in N/126). The acquisition transaction was made with the direct involvement of NetApp and with significant cooperation between it and Wee, with Wei being the one who ultimately sold the system to Elbit. Noy Mantap testified that NetApp worked together with Wei on the transaction for a long time, including a joint visit to the United States for this purpose (p. 6186, paras. 5-7; see also his testimony that in these circumstances NetApp had a value interest, that it worked hard together with NetApp on the transaction and in order to convince the customer (Elbit) to switch to work with NetApp, it was it that it would sell the system to Elbit. p. 6186, s. 28 - p. 6187, s. 5; p. 6190, paras. 7-34; See also the documents relating to the transaction, which indicate that Elbit sent the required technological requirements directly to NetApp, N/366, N/367; Noy Mantap was the one who passed the demands only to Levi, N/367; Later, NetApp was very involved with Wei in the proposal formulated for Elbit, N/414, N/273, N/274; P/124, P/275; See also a meeting with Oshri and Noy at Elbit Haifa, N/126, Oshri testimony, p. 4605, s. 18 - p. 4606, s. 8).