Of the aforementioned parties, Leshem is the only one who testified at the trial. The defense raised harsh arguments regarding Leshem's testimony and claimed that he had resolutely lied (e.g., paragraph 523 of the Wee summaries). The evidence indicates that Leshem was abroad towards the end of 2011 when the ELA deal was formulated and brought to the Procurement Committee for approval (p. 2117, para. 7; see also p. 2173, paras. 11-18). It also appears that Menashe wrote Leshem and Saratani as recipients in a copy of the email he sent to Oshri on December 29, 2011, in which he informed Oshri that Wee's offer was approved and that a formal invitation would be issued in January subject to approval (N/169). In addition, on a date that was not clarified, Leshem attached his signature to the form approved by a single supplier for the transaction (P/167, although as stated above, it was not clarified whether this approval was completed, see paragraph 902 supra).
Some of the answers that he gave to Shem in his testimony regarding the process of approving the ELA transaction can indeed raise question marks, especially in the face of the answers he gave during his interrogations at the CID relating to the ELA transaction (these interrogations were submitted – N/168(a)-(c)). In this context, the defense referred, inter alia, to the fact that in the interrogations of the CID, Leshem noted that Wei was not a single supplier (e.g., N/168(b), p. 2, paras. 24 – p. 3, s. 1) and that he did not mention in these interrogations the form he had signed (p. 2140, paras. 11-12; see also p. 2141, paras. 2-19, where he testified that at the time he was required to approve the order, there was no single supplier form available, and Menashe replied that he had competed between suppliers. and that it is possible that during the interrogations of the CID, he did not remember the form he signed; See also his testimony with respect to email N/169, which was sent to him in a copy, that the offer was not approved as long as there was no procurement committee and that he did not remember the notice addressed in the copy, p. 2143, paras. 2-16). As stated above, it is possible that some of the answers raise question marks. At the same time, no basis was laid for Leshem to know that Menashe was working to obtain fictitious price quotes retroactively, while retrodating them. Koffler's testimony, to which the defense referred, does not change this matter (Koffler testified that he himself was working on another transaction at the time, p. 6593, paras. 8-9, p. 6592, paras. 32-33; that he was not involved in conversations with the managers in connection with the ELA transaction, p. 6597, paras. 17-20; and in this situation, there is limited weight in his personal opinion that Menashe was "abandoned" at p. 6602, s. 33 - p. 6603, S. 1).