Finally, the arguments that Menashe asked for price quotes only because of the procedures of a civil appeal and that it follows from this that he asked for price quotes only for appearances. In the excerpts of the testimonies of Lapid and Menashe to which the defense referred there is nothing that it sought to find in them (Lavid, p. 6454, s. 22, p. 6455, s. 1; pp. 6464-6465; there he referred in general terms to the matter and without referring to the LAM in question; and his clear words should be preferred in relation to the BLAM here, p. 6494, paras. 10-19; Menashe, p. 1506, paras. 21 – p. 1507, s. 1; where he confirmed to the defense what she had proposed in weak language, "it could", and even this does not indicate that he asked for fictitious proposals). Even if, in accordance with the civil appeal procedures, a person is required to receive a number of price quotes, the aforementioned portions of the testimonies do not indicate that Menashe made idle offers or coordinated offers. On the contrary. The evidence shows that Menashe asked for truthful suggestions. It is not for nothing that Menashe testified that when he first saw the correspondence he was angry and felt that "they were making a fortune on me" (p. 1404, paras. 13-21, p. 1405, paras. 2-6). Shachar himself testified that no one in the civil appeal told him to coordinate with Gilad, to talk to a competitor and to submit a price quote (p. 2920, paras. 4-8).
- In summary, it should be noted that Wei argued in her summaries regarding the history of Menashe, who was convicted of his conduct in the ELA transaction (N/129, and see at length at paragraphs 897-902 above). However, it is easy to see that the coordination of the bids for the Storage Systems Defense Systems currently under discussion – which was done prior to the order and the selection of the winner, not at the request of IAI, behind its back, and without knowledge – is not at all similar to the conduct in the ELA transaction. In any case, these arguments should also be rejected.
- Therefore, all of the defense's arguments should be rejected.
The Sixteenth 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 sixteenth indictment – Balam Storage Systems – Shavi and Harel were parties to it. Therefore, and in view of the reasons detailed above, I convict Wei and Harel of the offense of being 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, as well as of the offense of fraudulent receipt under aggravated circumstances, under section 415 of the Penal 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 sixteenth indictment now under consideration, an offense was attributed to Oshri under Section 48 of the Competition Law.
- For the reasons detailed above in the discussion of section 48 in connection with the previous charges, here too it was proven that Oshri had the elements of the offense under section 48 of the Competition Law with respect to the sixteenth charge and the date on which it was committed: Oshri was an active manager of Weeway; 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 Seventeenth Charge
The Seventeenth Charge: The MPR Project, February 2012
- The seventeenth indictment was directed against Zeiger, Harel, Nahum and Triple C. As mentioned above, Nahum served as CEO and owner of Triple C. According to the indictment, during the month of February 2012, the aforementioned defendants were parties to an arrangement whereby Triple C would submit a higher price quote than Harel's in a price quote for the purchase of Blade and Unix servers for the MPR project of civil appeal (the combined MPR), in order to enable Harel to win the price quote. According to the claim, it was agreed that in return, Harel would purchase from Triple C half the value of the combined MPR. The combined MPR was not implemented because Maman decided to split the combined MPR into two different UAVs.
The defendants in this charge – Zeiger, Harel, Nahum and Triple C – are charged with the offense of a party to a restrictive arrangement under section 47(a)(1) of the law as drafted at the relevant time, together with sections 2(a), 2(b)(1), 2(b)(3), 4 and 55a(b) of the Competition Law. In relation to the defendants, the indictment refers to section 23(a)(2) of the Penal Law.