Criminal Case (Jerusalem) 54589-02-17 State of Israel v. Oshri Sharon - part 239

Beyond that, Nahum and Triple C's argument in the summaries is, as stated above, that when Nahum wrote to Zeiger, "I give higher bids than yours in coordination," "you win," Nahum meant that if Triple C submitted a bid alone, it would be higher than Harel's offer, because Triple C could not submit at the prices of the Comptroller General.  In the circumstances of the case, this is an argument that is baseless and illogical: baseless – because no basis has been laid for the fact that a proposal by Triple C, which according to its own opinion has an advantage with regard to Unix servers (an advantage that can have implications for the price of its overall offer), will necessarily be higher than Harel's proposal, which has  an advantage claimed in X servers  due to the Comptroller General's agreement (see also Nahum's own words, P/237,  S. 546-547, that each doubter could go separately "and the good prevails," in a way that did not rule out the possibility that Triple would have merited. Each doubt acted separately; This is true even if later on Triple C did not receive, according to it, optimal prices for X servers, N/80, and did not access the separate cable for X servers); Illogical - because the parties agreed to "go together", they discussed the "half-and-half" distribution format that Zeiger wanted to clarify, and there is no logic in the words that Nahum wrote in response to "I give your own high bids in coordination", "You win", he referred to what would happen if Triple C submitted an offer on its own, and there is no point or logic in sharing with Zeiger that in such a case the Triple C offer would be higher.  As stated above, this is also inconsistent with the text that explicitly refers to the submission of a high bid "in coordination" following which Harel will win, and this is not how Zeiger understood them (see also paragraph 977 above; Zeiger and Harel raised a different argument in the summaries, as if Triple C wanted to make a higher bid than Harel's in order to ensure that Harel would not pocket some of the winnings (paras. 760-761 of Harel's summaries, referring to Nahum's words in his interrogation, P/237, paras. 738-740); It seems, however, that the words that Nahum said there do not have what we find in Zeiger and Harel; They have no anchor in Zeiger's own testimony; They are inconsistent with Nahum's own version (and see also the words of Harel's counsel: p. 7010, paras. 3-4) and make no sense, since Triple C has no difficulty in checking the sale price of Harel to Elta for the purpose of dividing the transaction between the parties (for which the order documents from Elta are sufficient); In any event, according to this method, we are dealing with the submission of a high bid by Triple C with the coordination and knowledge of Harel, even if it is claimed that the purpose of this submission is rooted in the suspicion between the parties).  It is also clear that the word "coordinated", a coordination in which it is Harel that will win, as Nahum explicitly wrote in real time, refers to the coordination of the proposals, and not to the entire series or approval with IBM (which Nahum referred to separately later in the email).  The argument raised by Nahum in his interrogation that the examination of the procurement process with Orshitzer of IBM also included an examination of legality in terms of competition law should not be accepted and cannot be changed (P/237, paras. 809-824, with reference to P/187, P/500, "It was also agreed with Orshitzer.  He checks that the process will be legal").  Orshitzer testified that the examination in front of him concerned the receipt of a special hand (p. 2475, paras. 25-33).  No basis was laid for IBM to know about the arrangement that was formulated between Zeiger and Nahum for the coordination of the proposals to Elta, or that it had any involvement in it, and in any case IBM is not a party entitled to legitimize such an arrangement.