In their summaries, Nahum and Triple C raised, among other things, claims regarding the content of the email correspondence with Zeiger. This included the claim that Nahum did not refer to the coordination of price proposals, but only to the fact that an offer submitted by Triple C alone would necessarily be higher due to Harel's preferred terms as a franchisee of the Comptroller General; It was further argued that the phrase "Elta must not know" does not refer to the intention of the parties to conceal from Elta an arrangement for coordinating proposals, but rather to the fact that Elta must not understand that it is making a mistake in its demand for combined procurement in a single transaction of X and P servers. As we shall see below, these arguments have no basis. Nahum himself, as stated above, chose not to testify, and thus not to give an explanation for the clear things he wrote in real time. This is in accordance with his obligation. Beyond that, the allegations are inconsistent with the totality of the evidence, with the correspondence from real time, and with what Nahum himself said in his interrogation.
- For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that at the end of the day, the integrated MPR – that is, a procedure for the combined procurement of X servers and Unix servers from one vendor – was not implemented. Instead, at some point after the aforementioned coordination correspondence (P/123), the Civil Appeals decided to split the combined UAV into two different UAVs: one for the purchase of X servers (on which the eighteenth indictment is based); and the other for the purchase of used Unix (P) servers (which is not included in the indictment) (P/91, Shkanevsky, p. 949, S. 12 - P. 950, S. 1; 7-14, according to Zeiger's version, as if he had turned to Shkedi in order to split the BAM into two, we will be asked separately; Nahum, P/237, S. 534-535, S. 550-551). The exact date on which the Civil Appeal decided to split the Combined Operations Division has not been clarified. From the evidence it appears that this occurred at or around the beginning of March 2012 (see: P/106, according to which on March 14, 2012, Shkanevsky was appointed to conduct negotiations and competition between suppliers for the integrated equipment, p. 966, para. 21 - p. 967, para. 15; but see also P/111, N/270, Shekanevsky's inquiries to suppliers as early as March 7, 2012 in relation to X servers only). In any event, the fact that the combined police station was not carried out and split does not detract from the conclusion that an arrangement was made to coordinate price proposals, and that the offense was crystallized in the circumstances of the case.
- Let us now turn to the defense's arguments.
Reference to the defense's arguments
- In their summaries, the defendants raised various defense arguments.
The main argument raised by Zeiger and Harel is that Zeiger did not intend to make a deal with Nahum, that he did not agree to the deal and that he did not agree to an arrangement to coordinate bids as alleged. It was further claimed that the combined requirement for X servers and Unix servers created an "unsolvable problem", which required the open cooperation of Harel and Triple C, and that the correspondence between Zeiger and Nahum was nothing more than an initial probe to examine the feasibility of cooperation and the transaction, which was characterized by a lack of trust between the parties, knowing that the transaction was not feasible and that they had not reached any agreement, and therefore the element of "arrangement" in the offense was not fulfilled.