The defense's arguments should therefore be rejected. The arguments do not indicate a "method" of pricing for the sake of appearance. They do not lay a basis for the fact that in any of the charges in the indictment, the pricing was fictitious, and the allegations do not justify or legitimize the coordination of the price proposals.
The Fifteenth Charge: The Result
- The result of the aforesaid is that it has been proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the coordination and restrictive arrangement that is the subject of the fifteenth indictment – in the Licensing Renewal Task Force – between Wee and Harel has been proven. Therefore, I convict Wei and Harel of the offense of a party to a restrictive arrangement under section 47(a)(1) of the Competition Law, as drafted on the eve of the commencement of Amendment No. 21, together with sections 2(a), 2(b)(1), 2(b)(3), 4 and 55A of the Competition Law. The conviction is also based on section 23(a)(2) of the Penal Law.
Oshri - Section 48 of the Competition Law - Officer's Liability
- As part of the fifteenth indictment currently under consideration, Oshri was charged with an offense under Section 48 of the Competition Law.
- For the reasons detailed above in the hearing in section 48 in connection with the previous charges, here too it was proven that Oshri had fulfilled the elements of the offense under section 48 of the Competition Law with respect to the fifteenth charge and the date on which it was committed: Oshri was an active manager of Wey; Wei was convicted of the offense of a party to a restrictive arrangement in the charge here; And Oshri was not able to prove that he did what was necessary for the purpose of supervision and to prevent violations of the Competition Law.
The Sixteenth Charge
The Sixteenth Charge: Storage Systems - Balam from January 2012
- The sixteenth indictment was directed at Shahar, Wei, Gilad and Harel. According to the indictment, on January 11, 2012, Maman Levy and Harel applied for quotes for five storage systems from IBM (Balam Storage Systems). The aforementioned defendants were attributed to having been a party to an arrangement whereby Harel would submit a higher bid than Wee's in order to enable Lewis to win the Warehouse Systems. According to the allegations, the parties submitted their proposals in accordance with the settlement. Wei was chosen to carry out the storage systems at a cost of about $80,000. The aforementioned defendants were also accused of making a false representation to Maman according to which their proposals were submitted independently, without consultation, coordination or contact with another bidder, and in any event they did not disclose the fact of coordination between them (the misrepresentation) and that based on the misrepresentation, Maman's opinion regarding the validity of Wei and Harel's bids was accepted and Wee's offer was accepted as the winner. Oshri is credited with not being supervised and did everything possible to prevent an offense under the Competition Law.
Shahar and Gilad's case ended, as stated above, in plea bargains. Shahar and Gilad were convicted of the offense of being a party to a restrictive arrangement with respect to the Storage Systems Unit, without being charged with the offense of fraudulent receipt. As noted above, the aforesaid does not negate the possibility of convicting Wei and Harel of the offenses attributed to them, to the extent that guilt is proven at the required level (see the discussion at paragraphs 201-214 above).