In the proceeding before me, Menashe testified that he acted retroactively, after the closing of the transaction, to bring two fictitious price quotes in order to be able to sign the order (p. 1476, s. 13 - p. 1477, s. 2). Menashe testified that for this purpose he turned to Mira of Dorkum and Shachar Moy (p. 1477, paras. 3-9). Menashe's application to Dorkum was submitted as evidence at trial (N/62), and it appears that on February 23, 2012, Menashe contacted Dorkum and asked her to submit a proposal that would be retroactively dated to December 29, 2011 (ibid., p. 1418, s. 18 - p. 1419, s. 7). Similarly, Menashe testified that after the deal had already been closed, he activated Shahar in order for Harel to submit an offer at a price close to the price of Wii (p. 1477, para. 10 - p. 1478, para. 15). Shachar testified that two months after the money had already been paid to Levy, Menashe approached him and asked him (from Shachar) to contact Gilad and Zeiger and ask them to send a price quote from Harel to Menashe for the name of "Keshach" and that Shahar did so (p. 2916, paras. 16-23; p. 2915, paras. 20-23). Menashe testified that he acted in the wrong way, that he regretted it, and that he had not acted in such a way in the past (p. 1419, paras. 4-15).
The bottom line: In the ELA deal, after the deal with Wei was closed – without the actual issuance of the license – and after the actual licenses were provided, Menashe turned to receive additional (fictitious) price quotes, which would be dated back in retrospect as if they were submitted close to the date of Wee's offer, and while asking Shahar (with whom the deal was closed) to contact a competitor (Gilad) in order to get a price quote from him. This was not the case whether in coordination with the subject of the fifteenth indictment now being discussed, or in the charges that have been heard so far.
In summary, it should be noted that Menashe claimed in his testimony, inter alia, that the ELA transaction was promoted only with Wei in the form of a single supplier, that his superiors knew this and that the transaction was approved by the procurement committee. Menashe further claimed that because he was abroad at the time the transaction was closed, he refused to sign the order later on, in the absence of the approval of a single supplier, and that as a result, Menashe acted retroactively and after the transaction was closed, fictitious price quotes (p. 1415, s. 18 - p. 1416, s. 19, p. 1475, s. 6 - p. 1477, s. 2; see also p. 181). In connection with the aforesaid, the trial presented a single supplier approval form (P/167). The form bears the date of January 1, 2012 (although it is not clear when it was filled out or signed). It is partially signed, including by Menashe, Leshem and Tartani (Leshem, p. 2140, paras. 19-22, Koffler, p. 6598, paras. 8-10; although it is predicted that there is a lack of signatures of the required parties, see the bottom line on the left). It is possible that this is not a complete confirmation of a single supplier (and this is also in accordance with the description of the facts in the indictment according to which Menashe was convicted, N/129, paragraph 9(a)).