At the same time, arguments were raised on the merits of the coordination arrangement that is the subject of the indictment in question, including that here too the issue was a fictitious tender, which had no point in its editor, that in view of the fact that it was Lev that supplied Mapi with the 'brain' of the storage system after winning the 2010 tender, there was no real competition in the Mapi tender for the purchase of additional disks, and that NetApp was the one who initiated the arrangement. She was the one who closed the final price directly with Mapi and she was the one who instructed Wei to purchase the shelves from A.M.T.
We will now address all of the defense's arguments.
Oshri was a party to the settlement and his version of the emails should be rejected
- We saw above that Oshri was a party, addressed in a copy, to a series of coordinated e-mails in the days preceding the submission of the bids in the Mapi tender: both to the notice dated October 2, 2011, in which Shachar wrote to Rubinstein that "following our conversation on the subject of a mapping tender, we agreed that we would win and purchase the equipment from you...At the end of which Shachar emphasized that "for the avoidance of doubt, Oshri writes on the email...", as well as Rubinstein's reply from that day that Reshef is the one who handles the submission of the tender documents on EMET's behalf; Both to the notice dated October 9, 2011 in which Babian sent Rubinstein the prices of EMET's submission and Rubinstein's response to this (see paragraphs 794-800 above). Later on, Oshri was also involved in the purchase of the shelves from EMET in accordance with the arrangement and as part of its implementation (see paragraph 804 above).
- These are, as stated above, clear and unequivocal e-mails concerning an arrangement whereby A.E.M.T. will submit a high price quote to the tender of M.I., so that the value will be won and in return A.M.T. will purchase the shelves.
- Wei and Oshri claimed that no coordination arrangement had been made and that there was no room for competition in the Mapi tender. We will address these arguments later and it seems that they have no substance. In this chapter, we will address Oshri's version of how he understood the emails that constitute a pillar in his claim that he was not a party to the settlement.
- In his version at the time of his testimony, Oshri claimed that the summary mentioned in the email that Shachar sent to Rubinstein was "We agreed that we would win and we would purchase the equipment from you..." (P/82) – is not an agreement between a hook and a hook, but rather an agreement between a netapp and a hook; In this context, he testified that Noy had agreed with him (with Oshri) by telephone that at NetApp's request, Wei would purchase the shelves from A.M.T., as was done in the 2010 tender (e.g., p. 5174, paras. 16-20; elsewhere, Oshri stated that he agreed to this, provided that the price for Wei would be identical to the price offered by NetApp in a direct purchase from it, p. 4576, paras. 3-8); He also testified that he assumed that a bid would be given in the tender on the basis of a different price he would agree with Koren of the Mapa (p. 4579, paras. 11-12; based on the second sentence in the e-mail; p. 4574, paras. 15-23). With regard to the prices that he sent to Rubinstein in a statement so that the company would submit them as EMET's bid for the MAPI tender – as stated above – Oshri testified that he assumes that this is either an offer for the purchase of EMET or the prices at which Wii will purchase the shelves from EMET (p. 4580, s. 19 - p. 4581, s. 2; p. 5146, s. 14-16, s. 23 - p. 5147, s. 6 - the purchase price from A.M.T. as agreed upon by Noy, This is what he understood at the time; P. 5148, paras. 4-6). At the same time, Oshri was careful to claim that he did not attribute importance to the emails in real time (p. 5154, s. 23), that these were emails that were sent to him only for information, that he did not clarify anything about the written matter, that he was not involved in the details of the deal for the expansion of the shelves that was the subject of the CPI tender, that he was not in the details, that he was not "in the transaction" or "with the customer" and that there was no complexity that required his involvement (p. 4581, 20 - p. 4582, S. 6).
- This version of Oshri should not be accepted. His version on these matters, both in the Authority's interrogation and in his testimony at trial, was unreliable. Part of his version at the time of his testimony was suppressed. Parts of his testimony contradicted what he said during his interrogation. The version as a whole is inconsistent with the clear real-time documents. In general, it was clear that Oshri was trying to distance himself from incriminating correspondence to which he was a party.
- From the evidence brought before the court, it clearly emerges that a coordination arrangement was made between Wei and EMET, and that the arrangement was even carried out in practice: EMET submitted its bid for the MAPI tender at the adjusted prices sent to it by WI and in exchange for this, and as agreed in advance, WMT purchased the shelves at a price that reflects the transfer of part of the profit to EMET. We saw that this is what emerges from the documents from real time, as well as from Rubinstein's testimony.
- The attempt to take the Bible out of its clear meaning and claim that Oshri understood otherwise was not convincing. Far from it.
Shahar (Moy) wrote to Rubinstein (MAMET), "following our conversation on the subject of a mapping tender, we agreed that we would win and purchase the equipment from you...". The phrase "we agreed" clearly refers to the agreement between Shachar and Rubinstein, between Wei and EMET. Oshri's answers to the court's questions in this context are as if he "assumes" that Shahar had reached an agreement with Noy, even though according to Oshri himself it was "pointless" were unreliable (Shahar himself testified that this was a summary with A.M.T. Value Winner, p. 2895, paras. 30-31, although he later tried to make reservations). Oshri himself replied that he did not know how to explain why Shachar would write to Rubinstein, "We agreed that we would win" (p. 4577, s. 7 - p. 4578, s. 1, despite an attempt to complete the matter after a comment by his counsel).