Criminal Case (Jerusalem) 54589-02-17 State of Israel v. Oshri Sharon - part 182

The defense sought significant support for its claims in the 2012 exemption.  We saw above that a few months after the Mapi tender, Koren and Mapi acted to purchase additional CDs from Wei, this time with an exemption from a tender (P/83 and see paragraphs 812-814 above).  Koren explained his request for an exemption from a tender in 2012 on the grounds that these are critical systems for the Planning and Planning Authority and in order to receive overall responsibility and avoid the 'rollover' of liability between different suppliers (ibid.).  Wei and Oshri sought to build on Koren's testimony, based on the reasons for the exemption request he wrote, that it is of the utmost importance that the 'brain' supplier also provide the shelves due to the issue of liability (p. 566, paras. 18-26, p. 571, paras. 19-32).  At certain stages in his testimony, Koren erred in believing that in the Mapi tender, Mapi had purchased not only the shelves but also the 'brain' – even though it had already been purchased in the 2010 tender – and explained that for this reason the Mapi tender was issued.  He further testified that in view of the reasons for the exemption request, if they had not also purchased 'The Brain' in the Mapi tender, in his opinion they would not have been issued in the Mapi tender by contacting a number of authorized suppliers of NetApp (p. 567, paras. 19-20, paras. 26-29, paras. 30-32).  Later, and after he was presented with relevant documents, he confirmed that although he initially recalled otherwise, in the Mapi tender (P/357) Mapi purchased three discs and did not purchase the 'head' of the storage system (p. 574, paras. 2-5; le-khatḥila Koren did not recall that Mapi had worked with Hook prior to the Mapi tender, p. 574, paras. 14-22) and recalled that Mapi had purchased the 'brain' from Weiy even earlier and following the 2010 tender (p. 581,  S. 1-14, even though he remembered otherwise in the first place).  In their summaries, Wei and Oshri emphasized that Koren said in his testimony after all this.  According to the argument, it appears from Koren's words that since it was the value that supplied the 'brain' already in the 2010 tender, and in view of the reasons for the exemption request regarding the importance of receiving an overall liability from one supplier, the reasoning is also valid for the tender that is the subject of the indictment.  In other words, here too, the tender should not have been issued, while Koren confirmed that he may have made a mistake in his judgment when he went out for a tender from the Land Registry (p. 587, paras. 3-12 and see the arguments at paras. 331-332 of the WI summaries).  In this testimony of Koren, Wei and Oshri sought to find conclusive proof that it was appropriate for Mapi to issue an exemption from a tender for an engagement with Wee for the purpose of supplying the addition of shelves – as it did in the 2012 exemption – instead of being issued in a Mapi tender, and that the Mapi tender was a fictitious and "tailor-made" tender (paragraphs 356-357 of Wee's summaries).