In addition, in the email to Rubinstein, Shahar added that "for the avoidance of doubt, Oshri writes on the email..."This is in order to give more credence to the agreement – an agreement between Wii and EMET – and to emphasize that value, through Oshri, is behind it.
Moreover. At Shahar's request, Rubinstein replied that it was Reshef who handled the submission of the tender documents on behalf of EMET. It is also clear from this that the agreement was between WI and EMET and that the agreement revolved around coordinating the submission of EMET's bid in the MAPI tender in which it was agreed that a value would be the winner and for this purpose the details of the person who would handle the submission of the bid to the tender by EMET were required. Oshri would have written about this email as well. The obvious conclusion is that he was well aware of what was said and that he was a party to the agreement that dealt with the submission of the bids for the tender from the Israel Land Authority, and not only the purchase of shelves from EMET, as claimed by him, for which the details of the bidder on behalf of EMET were not required (and in this matter as well, Oshri did not have satisfactory answers, including to the court's questions, p. 5151, s. 16 - p. 5152). S. 25, p. 5152, S. 26 - P. 5154, S. 23 where he finally tried to find refuge on the grounds that he did not attach importance to the words).
Added to this is the e-mail message in which Babian sent Rubinstein (and later to Reshef as well) the prices that EMET must state in its proposal, about which Oshri was also writing. EMET did submit its bid for the tender at the prices sent to it by Wey. Oshri's version seems to have thought that these are the prices at which Wei will purchase the shelves from EMET is baseless and completely unconvincing. These prices are significantly higher than the price of NetApp Levi's bid and the prices of Wee itself in its bid for the Mapi tender. Therefore, it is not possible that these are purchase prices from EMAT, and it is not possible that Oshri understood this. Moreover, when the matter was presented to Asharei in his interrogation at the Authority, he confirmed that in the aforementioned e-mail correspondence, Wii had transferred the prices to A.M.T. in order for A.M.T. to submit them in a tender from the Authority. In other words, Oshri confirmed that this was the logical and reasonable understanding of the matter (his attempt to deal with the matter in his testimony, and to claim that in the interrogation he was harsh with himself, as well as his answers to the court's questions on this point, were not convincing, p. 5147, s. 16 - p. 5149, s. 23; It should be noted that another argument in his testimony was that it was – or as if Oshri thought it was – a purchase offer from A.M.T., p. 4580, para. 19 - p. 4581, para. 2, i.e., the value of the sale to A.M.T., contradicts the argument at the heart of his version in the testimony that at Noy's request, Wei agreed to purchase the shelves from A.M.T., and not the other way around).
- Added to the above are additional difficulties in Oshri's version of events as to the course of events and the manner in which he understood the e-mail correspondence of which he was a party. As stated above, in his testimony, Oshri claimed that Noy had agreed with him (with Oshri) by telephone that at the request of NetApp, Wei would purchase the shelves from A.M.T. as was done in the 2010 tender (e.g., p. 5174, paras. 16-20). However, this is a suppressed testimony. In his announcement to the Authority – in the segments in which he was extensively investigated about the Mapi tender (P/214, Q. 393 onwards) – Oshri did not describe a conversation he had with Noy and did not refer to the purchase of the shelves from EMET in the 2010 tender as the basis for his claim regarding his understanding of the correspondence with regard to the correspondence with respect to the corresponding email correspondence. His version during the interrogation was twisted and in an attempt to distance himself from the matter. Thus, in the first instance, he claimed in the interrogation, in an attempt to explain the conduct at the end of which Wei won the tender from the Israel Land Authority, that Levi was a preferential price from Tap, the manufacturer (P/214, Q. 393-395; Q. 401-402, "We would have been prioritized. unequivocally"; S. 423-427, where he claimed that Wei received the best price from Tap and made purchase offers to others who requested). We saw above that there is no basis for this claim and that NetApp gave identical price offers to the suppliers in the Mapi tender and that Oshri knew this (P/277, see paragraph 792 above). During the interrogation at Oshri Authority, he distanced himself and claimed that he was not involved at all in the pricing stage for the Mapi tender or in working with other suppliers (P/214, Q. 412-415) and that it was Bayan or Shachar who told him about the priority given by NetApp Levy (P/214, Q. 428-431). Later in the interrogation, Oshri explicitly claimed that "... I wasn't involved. I was not in contact with NetApp, not with Emet, and not with the client" (P/214, paras. 508-509). This, in direct contradiction to the version from the testimony, as if Noy spoke with him on the phone and agreed with him about the purchase of the shelves from A.M.T. Beyond that, his version in the testimony was a developing version. In his main testimony, when he was presented with the e-mail message that Shachar sent to Rubinstein – "Following our conversation on the subject of a mapping tender, we agreed that we would win and purchase the equipment from you regarding the price, we would agree later after we understood from Ronen [Noy] what was done with Alex [Koren] from mapping" (P/82) – he replied that he did not know, that he did not know the details (p. 4575, paras. 17-18). Regarding his understanding at the time he received the email, he replied that he "assumed" that he had received a subscription phone that asked him to purchase from A.M.T., as was done in the 2010 tender, and that he assumed that he agreed on the condition that it would not come at the expense of Wii in terms of cost (p. 4576, paras. 3-8; Even the argument for an agreement subject to the fact that VAT will pay EMET the same price as the price that NetApp gave to Levy, does not correspond to the actual course of events as EMET paid EMET a higher price, as part of the consideration to EMET for its share in the summary, see paragraph 804 above). Subsequently, this alleged assumption regarding a conversation with Noy – a conversation that was not mentioned in such interrogation – became knowledge and a claim of a central fact that Oshri repeated again and again (e.g., p. 5174, paras. 16-20, p. 5140, paras. 13-15, p. 5169, para. 6; the attempt to cling to the explanations given by Oshri in his interrogation by way of hypothesis, evaluation and "business understanding" P/214, paras. 510-511, is not convincing, in view of the conspicuous absence of the allegation regarding his conversation with Noy that arose in his testimony). In contrast to his claim in testimony that Noy closed with Koren of the Mapa Final Price, his answer stands in the interrogation, where he claimed that he did not know that this was the case and referred the investigator to examine the state of the affairs with Babiyan, Shachar and Rubinstein (P/214, paras. 588-593) in a manner that does not support his claims regarding the manner in which he understood the email correspondence in real time. The impression that emerges from his interrogation at the PA is that Oshri distanced himself, raised speculations and assessments, and did not make claims that became the central pillar of his version in his testimony at trial, including that he spoke with Noy who asked him to purchase the shelves from A.M.T.
- The bottom line: The email correspondence that Oshri was addressed to is explicit and clear coordination correspondence. It clearly emerges from them that an agreement was made between Wei and EMET, according to which Wei would win the tender, for which EMET would submit a bid at a price coordinated with Wee, and in return Wei would purchase the shelves from EMET. The correspondence speaks for itself, and Oshri's version should be rejected as if he understood things differently.
- An examination of the evidence presented above also leads to the conclusion that it has been proven, at the level required in a criminal trial, that Oshri was a party to the coordination arrangement regarding the Mapi tender.
- As stated above, Oshri would write in real time on the e-mail correspondence that brought up the arrangement of coordination in writing (P/82). In the email that Shahar sent to Rubinstein (with a copy to Oshri) in which Shahar put the summary in writing - "Following our conversation on the subject of a mapping tender, we agreed that we will win and purchase the equipment from you..." - Shachar took the trouble to emphasize to Rubinstein that "For the avoidance of doubt, Oshri writes on the email..."This, it seems, is in order to give more weight and validity to the agreement between Wei and E.M.T., and to clarify the valuation, through Oshri, is behind it. Afterwards, Oshri would also write about the continuation of the email correspondence in which the prices of EMET's submission were coordinated. In other words, Oshri was informed and also took sides with an email message that constitutes a concretization of the agreement according to which Wei is the one who will win the tender from Mapi and is a party to its promotion and realization. The correspondence is clear. Oshri side as if he were writing to all of them. We have seen that Oshri's version as to his understanding of them from real time should be rejected as unreliable (on the grounds that Oshri was on vacation on November 9, 2011 when the price adjustment notice itself was sent, as appears from N/289, there is no difference from Oshri confirming that he read emails while on vacation as well, p. 4577, s. 5, p. 4580, paras. 5-15, and see paragraph 800 800Sifa above; Even the vague claim that he could have denied that he had read the e-mail because he was at liberty – that is, the claim that he could have said something that was not true, without clarifying whether it could not be easily refuted – does not change the conclusion regarding the unreliability of his version with regard to the understanding of the matter). Subsequently, Wei won the tender from the Land Registry and Oshri was updated on this (P/320). Oshri was also involved afterwards, when Babayan approached him in connection with the purchase of the shelves from A.M.T. (P/277, see paragraph 804 above). In other words, Oshri was involved and informed even at the stage of executing the arrangement and implementing it. Evidentiary support for Oshri's involvement in the settlement also emerges from Shahar's testimony. Shachar testified that it was Oshri (and Bayan) who asked Shachar to assist in coordinating the price proposals with A.M.T. (p. 2894, s. 21, p. 2895, paras. 3-5, paras. 14-17, further to P/557(10), paras. 255-262; his statements, which are corroborated by documents from real time, should be accepted, despite Shahar's attempts in testimony to evade everything related to Oshri's involvement; they at least indicate that Oshri was aware of the arrangement and agreed to it; in view of Oshri's awareness of the matter and his involvement, as follows from the aforesaid The fact that Rubinstein was not in direct contact with him or did not know him, p. 3699, paras. 9-18, p. 3700, para. 22, does not change the conclusion in our case).
- The evidence therefore shows that Oshri was aware of the arrangement and its details in real time, that he agreed to it, that he was a partner and a direct party to it (even if behind the scenes and not directly with EMET), and was even involved in its implementation after Wee's win. In this state of affairs, there is a solid basis for convicting Oshri as a party to the arrangement (see and compare: Ben Dror (District) at paragraphs 660-664; Borowitz at paragraph 76).
The claim that this was fictitious pricing and that it was clear that the value that provided the 'brain' of the storage system was what would win the supply of the shelves is the subject of a CPI tender
- Wei and Oshri claimed that the Mapi tender was a fictitious, "tailor-made" tender that was held for the sake of appearance only.
This argument was based, inter alia, on the fact that it was the value that won the 2010 tender at the end of 2010 and that it was the one that supplied Mapi with the 'heads', the 'brains', of the storage system, along with other components as well as responsibility for the system (see in detail at paragraphs 784-785 above). In the state of affairs – this is the argument – when the addition of shelves was required in September 2011, Mapi had no other option but to purchase the addendum that is the subject of a tender from the Mapi Municipality (e.g., paragraph 357 of the Wai summaries). This is because the purchase of the 'brain' from one supplier and shelves from another supplier may cause malfunctions and problems in the future, and that the issue of service and responsibility will fall between the cracks when in the event of a malfunction each supplier will point an accusing finger at the other supplier, a matter that has been referred to in the discussions as pointing fingers. Therefore – this is the argument – it is in the interest of the manufacturer (NetApp) and the customer (Mappi) that there should be one supplier that will provide the service and responsibility to all the components of the system, in our case: Wii (e.g., Oshri testimony, pp. 4568, paras. 8-13; p. 4577, paras. 10-12; Oshri in his interrogation, P/214, paras. 435-436, paras. 536-543, paras. 593-595; and see also the testimony of Avi Menashe, which does not refer to this case, according to which sometimes the customer prefers not to "mix suppliers"", p. 1402, paras. 1-9). It was argued that when it comes to NetApp products, this is even more true because it was the supplier – and not the manufacturer – who provided the service and warranty (Oshri, p. 4568, paras. 15-24). In this context, the defense also referred to Rubinstein's testimony, according to which it assumes that Koren of the Mapa preferred to have one supplier and that it would have been more convenient for him to purchase the shelves that are the subject of a Mapi tender (p. 3676, paras. 11 - p. 3677, para. 3, on the basis of the arguments of counsel for the penalty in her own case).