In the context at hand, Rubinstein testified that it was Shachar who approached her regarding the MAPI tender, and that Shachar offered her a purchase value for the shelves from EMET, and that Rubinstein would submit a higher price quote to the MAPI tender on behalf of EMET, so that VA would win the tender and "that way there will be no quarrels between the integrators" (p. 3638, paras. 1-5; p. 3636, s. 12-18, p. 3637, s. 2, 9, 15); Rubinstein explained in her testimony that EMET had previously supplied the storage systems to the CPI, and that after EMET lost the 2010 tender, Rubinstein intended to participate in the MAPI tender (in September 2011) and that Shahar was concerned that A.M.T. might win the supply of shelves in the tender and offered her the offer "so that there would be quiet in the sector" (p. 3638, s. 10 - p. 3639, s. 6; p. 3646, s. 16 - p. 3647, s. 1, where she explained that in relation to what Shachar wanted, she "assumes a well-founded assumption"...). Rubinstein further testified that it is clear that in a world without a tender and without competition for Shachar, it is preferable to purchase the shelves directly from the manufacturer (NetApp) and keep the entire margin with them, but that here Shahar was forced to buy through EMET because "he wanted me to put a higher price" so that the value would win the tender from the Municipal Corporation (p. 3698, paras. 6-24). This testimony of Rubinstein regarding the content and purpose of the summary was reliable and should be accepted. She fits in well with the email message from real time (it is also a testimony against the interest in relation to a coordination arrangement to which she was a party; although at a certain point in her interrogation with the authority she said that EMET had no chance of winning in the first place, p. 3677, paras. 10-25, p. 3680, paras. 2-8, in a manner that was in line with her interest at the time in reducing the coordination issues, in her testimony she expressed reservations about the more decisive manner in which she expressed herself in the interrogation and explained that although she estimated that A.M.T.'s chances were lower, it is clear that if she had made a proposal Lower than Wee's, A.E.M.T. would have won, p. 3680, s. 16-18, p. 3681, s. 3-18; P.A. 3678, paras. 13-14, this testimony of the defense, which was, as stated above, reasoned, and reliable, should be clearly preferred, and see below in paragraph 828 onwards also the discussion of the defense's claim as if it were the value of the 'brain' that provided its winning of the CPI tender was clear and guaranteed).
- Thus, from the email message sent by Shachar to Rubinstein (with a copy to Oshri on October 2, 2011 (P/82), a clear agreement emerges between Wei and E.M.T., according to which Wei will win the tender from the Land Authority, and in return Wei will purchase the equipment (shelves) that are the subject of the tender.
- Rubinstein replied to Shahar on the same day, 2 October 2011, that an EMET salesman who worked for her team was the one who handled the submission of tender documents from the Israel Land Authority, and mentioned his telephone number (P/82, P/558). Oshri is also a party to this correspondence, which is addressed in the copy (ibid.).
- A week later, on October 9, 2011 – two days before the deadline set for submitting bids for the Mapi tender – Baban Moy replied to the aforementioned email thread, and sent Rubinstein an email in which he specified the prices that EMET must submit in its bid for the Mapi tender. In a statement, Bayan wrote to Rubinstein: "... Further to your conversation with Shachar. NIS 145,500 for a shelf excluding VAT[,] NIS 436,500 for three shelves excluding VAT" (P/82, P/279, P/558).
This is an email message that constitutes a concretization of the conclusion according to which Wei will win the IPI tender. Babian sent Rubinstein the prices that EMET must submit to the tender, which are higher, as we shall see below, than the prices of Wei's intended bid (Rubinstein's testimony, at p. 3640, paras. 1-16, where she noted that Babayan instructs her in relation to the prices that A.E.T. is supposed to submit in her bid, Shahar, p. 2898, paras. 28-32, where he also replied in relation to the correspondence here).