Following our conversation on the subject of a mapping tender we agreed that we will win and we will purchase the equipment from you, regarding the price we will agree later after we understand from Ronen [Noy] what is closing with Alex [Koren] from mapping, I understand that this week you are abroad so contact me who handles the issue.
For the avoidance of doubt, Oshri writes on the email... " (underline added)
- The email correspondence speaks for itself: it puts in writing an agreement that was formulated earlier in a conversation between Shahar and Rubinstein, according to which Wei will win the tender from the Israel Land Authority, and in return Wei will purchase the equipment (shelves) that are the subject of the tender. Oshri writes about the message. As we shall see below, Oshri is a party to the arrangement. Shachar notes Oshri's writing explicitly "and for the avoidance of doubt" in a way that emphasizes that Oshri is in the picture and involved, that the summary is in his opinion and clearly supports that he was a party to the settlement.
- Oshri's claims that he understood the email message differently and the claims of Wei and Oshri regarding the content of the email and the summary mentioned therein, will be addressed separately. It seems that the arguments should not be accepted. Wei and Oshri are trying to shift the emphasis to the second sentence in the email, which relates to the relationship between Noy Mantap and Koren of the Mapi Authority, and to claim that Noy and Koren closed the final price of the shelves to the Mapi even before the bids were submitted in the tender. As we shall see below, these arguments must be rejected. Nor do they change the clear summary that arises from the first sentence.
- Rubinstein's testimony provides significant support for the conclusion that emerges from the email that Wei will win the tender from the Israel Land Authority, and in return, MAMET will purchase the shelves. As stated above, Rubinstein was convicted following a plea bargain of the offense of a party to a restrictive arrangement in connection with the summary in question.
Rubinstein's testimony made a credible impression. She was careful to be precise. The distinction between assumptions and facts, between her subjective feeling and the picture of reality, between what she remembers clearly and what she doesn't. She answered the questions asked openly and honestly.