With regard to the examination of the possibility of an ELA deal, the evidence shows that Menashe actually entered the picture only after Weinschel went on maternity leave, at some point during the month of December 2011, towards the end of the year (Menashe's testimony, p. 1414, s. 21 - p. 1415, s. 6, where he testified that he began to deal with the matter in the last two weeks of 2011, while explaining that Weinschel went on maternity leave and Koffler, her supervisor, was engaged in another transaction; p. 1539, S. 24 - P. 1541, S. 1, entered into the matter after Winschel left, in order to promote an end-of-year deal, and that he was not involved in collecting the needs with the factories; Weinschel, p. 684, paras. 1-8; Koffler, p. 6593, paras. 12-13; but see N/205).
On December 11, 2011, another hearing was held in a civil appeal with the participation of representatives of Wii and VMware. During the meeting, Oshri presented a presentation regarding the feasibility of engaging in the ELA transaction and the costs of licensing and maintenance of licenses outside of the ELA transaction (see, Testimony of Rezinsky, p. 2525, paras. 8 – p. 2526, para. 14; and N/206 (summons to a meeting), N/195, N/196, N/197). The idea was to convince the Civil Appeal why it should enter into an ELA deal (ibid.). In other words, at that point in time, Civil Appeal had not yet decided to proceed with this outline of the ELA transaction.
In the period following the aforesaid, Menashe took upon himself the issue and together with Michael Bornstein, the head of the Technology Administration (Bornstein), worked with Wei to try to reduce the costs of the transaction (Koffler, p. 6593, paras. 10-17; see also N/198, N/199 - Email correspondence in connection with the transaction).
At the end of December 2011, on December 29, 2011, and in order to obtain discounts given before the end of the year, Menashe completed the negotiations with Wei and approved Wee's offer to enter into an ELA transaction for a period of three years and in a total amount of $1,035,000 (N/169 - an email message by Menashe to Oshri and Shahar, with a copy to Leshem and Tarani, Maman's manager that the offer was approved and a formal invitation would be issued in January, subject to the approval of IAI officials; Menashe, p. 1412, s. 5-6, p. 1476, s. 13-16, the deal was closed with Wei at the end of December, on the last Thursday of 2011; Oshri, p. 4621, paras. 22-23; Shahar, p. 2915, s. 22, p. 2916, s. 12-14; With regard to the value of the transaction, see also P/181). The licenses were handed over to a civil appeal in January 2012 (p. 1476, paras. 13-16; Oshri, p. 4621, paras. 22-23; the licenses were activated for a civil appeal at the end of December immediately upon the approval of the transaction).
- The picture that emerges so far: After Winschel went on maternity leave, no action was taken to promote the license renewal team. Menashe, who had not been involved before, entered the picture at a certain point afterwards, and worked to promote another outline – the ELA deal – while in this context he acted only with Wei and approved its proposal without coming out with a request to receive quotes from other suppliers for such a deal and without pricing between suppliers.
- In retrospect, after the fact, and after the licenses were provided for a civil appeal in practice, Menashe acted unlawfully, including in order to present a representation as if pricing had taken place prior to the approval of the engagement with Wee.
We have seen above that an indictment was filed against Menashe and Shahar for their conduct in connection with the ELA transaction (criminal file 44846-01-19). Menashe was credited, among other things, with refraining from receiving competing tender offers even though he knew that the engagement with Wei was not approved as a sole supplier. It was also attributed to Menashe that in February 2012, after the completion of the transaction, he acted to produce two allegedly competing proposals for the procurement portfolio, while requesting such proposals from Shahar and another company that would be dated retroactively to the date of Wei's offer. This is in order for them to be seen as bids received during December 2011 and prior to the closing of the transaction, even though they were produced only retroactively and two months later in February 2012, and in order to enable the order to be executed. Menashe confessed to the charges against him and was convicted, among other things, of breach of trust. Shachar was convicted of aiding and abetting breach of trust, also on the basis of his confession (P/129, Menashe, p. 1489, paras. 18-22).