The arguments raised by the defense in relation to Lavi's testimony do not change the aforesaid conclusion. The defense tried to build on the fact that around 2019, many years after the events in question, Shachar participated in a seminar at the Israel Bar Association organized by Lavi and which she may have invited to a conference (N/119, p. 1302, s. 3 - p. 1303, s. 17, n/120); that in 2019, Lavi sent Shachar a congratulations on a social network (N/121); that Lavi testified that she maintained a good relationship with Shahar and maintained a professional relationship with him as a sales manager for Wee, with whom Elbit continued to work (p. 1303, paras. 18-19, paras. 23 - p. 1304, s. 2; p. 1316-1318 regarding Elbit's work with a new company of Shahar and Mordechai; testimony of Shahar, p. 3294, s. 22 - p. 3295, s. 6, p. 3064, s. 20-23; and see in relation to Harel, N/122). All of this, as well as what she said in her cross-examination that the accusations against Shahar are being clarified in the legal proceeding that has not yet been decided, or in other things she said from the distance of time, does not in any way crack her clear testimony – as stated above, no evidence was brought to contradict it – that she did not know from the matter of coordination between Shahar and Gilad, that she treated the matter with severity, and that if she had known about them in real time, she would have acted to stop the procurement process (see also her testimony that after her interrogation with the Authority, When it became aware of this, it did not update others at Elbit – perhaps it could not have updated – of the details that arose in the investigation, except for a brief update that it gave to the legal advisor about the improper conduct in the procurement process, p. 1305, paras. 18-25). As stated above, Shahar himself did not claim in his testimony that Lavi knew about the matter of coordination and the defense's arguments should not be accepted as if Shahar tried to defend Lavi due to the friendly relations between them (p. 3064, paras. 19-23; in fact, Shahar's words were said against his and Wei and Oshri (to whom the offense of lack of supervision was attributed in the indictment in question), with whom his relations are much closer, to which he is much closer. and that he tried to benefit from them in large parts of his testimony).
- In these circumstances, there are also the elements of the offense of fraudulent receipt: fraud by submitting offers to Alop while failing to disclose the coordination of the proposals and by misrepresentation (see paragraphs 27-28 above); Acceptance of the matter – in Elaop's assumption regarding the validity of the proposals and the procedure and the selection of a way to supply the contents of the procurement (see paragraph 29 above), when the causal connection arises from the above evidence that shows that had it not been for the concealment, Lavi and Alop would have acted differently. Since the acts of fraud are based on another offense – a restrictive arrangement – while harming a competitive process, and in view of the systematic nature of the acts, these are aggravated circumstances, in accordance with the criteria set out in case law (see paragraph 31 above).
Reference to Additional Defense Arguments
- In the summaries, Wei and Harel raised arguments similar to those raised in previous indictments, the essence of which is that here, too, Alop had no intention of holding a real competition; that this was a "tailor-made" proceeding; and to receive "fictitious" price quotes for the minutes only (e.g., paragraph 662 of Harel's summaries; Sections 503, 509 of the Wii summaries). In other words, it was claimed that Wei's win was known and guaranteed in advance.
In connection with the aforesaid, it was argued that Wii was the one that supplied Elbit with the central storage system, and therefore it was a clear advantage to purchase the components of the expansion from Wii as well, including for reasons of liability and in order for one party to be responsible to the customer and in a way that would prevent fear in the future that one supplier would point to the other in the event of a malfunction (Shahar, p. 3065, paras. 8-25, where he repeated things from his interrogation as if Gilad and Harel had no chance because Value provided the system and that due to the issue of liability the customer would not buy Shelves from Harel; P. 2891, paras. 10-20, where he testified that it was clear that Gilad could have given a price quote independently, that this was not a complex demand, even though it was usually the supplier who sold the system who sold the additional shelf; Zeiger, p. 5992, paras. 12-20, where he testified that the supplier who supplied the central system had a great advantage with regard to the supply of extensions; Noy, 6290, paras. 2-14, where he testified that NetApp may give a certain price preference to a supplier who sold the central system and still provides service, but that this depends on the situation; See also his words there regarding the degree of preference; and Shachar, p. 3441, s. 9).