Oshri also testified that Shahar was familiar with the said no-bid policy (p. 4361, paras. 20-22) and that if Shahar had approached Oshri to submit a bid in a transaction in which the lender did not have priority, Oshri would have instructed him not to submit a no-bid (p. 4362, paras. 6-15). In this state of affairs - this is the claim of Wei and Oshri - Shahar acted contrary to Oshri's no-bid policy by submitting offers for civil appeal on all those charges in which Levi had no chance of accepting the deal because it had already been tailor-made to another supplier. It was argued that for this reason as well, Shachar should not be regarded as an organ of Wei and his actions should not be regarded as Wee's actions.
I cannot accept these arguments.
Later on, we will address separately the defendants' arguments that the competitive proceedings that are the subject of the charges were only for appearances. For our purposes, we will now note that the arguments of Wei and Oshri that are based on Oshri's no-bid policy and the claim that Shahar acted in contravention of this policy should be rejected.
First, the evidence presented both in relation to the specific charges (as detailed below) and in relation to other cases, undermines the argument that the submission of a bid on behalf of Wei for a proceeding in which Levi had no chance of winning, stands in contravention of Oshri's alleged no-bid policy . Thus, cases were presented in which Oshri instructed the people of Wei to submit a high bid for a competitive proceeding, in coordination with a competing supplier, and with the knowledge that it was the other supplier and not Wei who would win (for example, P/600 there, following a request received by Oshri from the Civil Appeal to receive a price quote in a proceeding that was not included in the indictment, Oshri instructed Shahar to "send him a high bid in coordination with Harel", and subsequently Shachar contacted Zeiger of Harel and asked him to send Shahar the price at which Zeiger wanted a value to be offered to IAI; Such conduct is inconsistent with the claims of Wei and Oshri in relation to the sweeping no-bid policy as aforesaid; and the answers given by Oshri in this context in his testimony were difficult, p. 5259, paras. 14-5260, para. 22; and see also P/299 where Oshri instructed regarding the submission of a bid in a tender and noted that "in the tender we are coordinated and losing", even without going into the details of the details, this instruction is inconsistent with the claim that the submission of such a bid is contrary to the no-bid policy the claimant; Oshri did not deny this in his testimony, although he tried to give explanations to the matter, p. 5261). Oshri also confirmed that he was involved in events in which Wee asked other suppliers to submit a price quote - at the price quoted by Wee - in order to ensure Wee's win (e.g., Oshri Notice, P/214, paras. 185-200, where he described how he approached the supplier Ankor and that, following the request, Ankor submitted a bid in accordance with what Shahar had sent it in order to ensure a value would be won; that is, he asked another supplier to submit a bid in circumstances in which Wee would have refrained from submitting a bid as alleged; see also P/597, P/598, where Oshri asked Tziger that Harel submit to 888 Gaming Company an offer at a price indicated by Oshri and which was higher than Wie's offer; Oshri's answers on this matter in his testimony raised difficulties, for example, at p. 5118, paras. 13 onwards, and at the end of the day Oshri confirmed that there may be cases in which after he understood the value of the non-picture, he would submit a bid at the price at the request of another supplier and that he would not necessarily make a no-bid, p. 5128, paras. 2-6, paras. 7-15). All of this has implications for the claims of the no-bid policy. (To be precise: the reference here to cases beyond those attributed in the indictment is intended only for the purpose of examining the defense's argument raised by Wei and Oshri regarding the policy of theNo bid, which in turn relied on cases that were not indicted, and in any event, in light of Oshri's aforementioned testimony, is in fact beyond what is required). Moreover, Oshri explained the no-bid policy by saying that he saw no point in investing time and resources where he understood, according to him, that a borrower had no chance of winning the deal. However, the submission of a bid coordinated with another supplier and at his request - as attributed to some of the charges - sometimes by the "copy paste" method, does not involve such an investment and in any case does not contradict the alleged no-bid policy.