Caselaw

Criminal Case (Jerusalem) 54589-02-17 State of Israel v. Oshri Sharon - part 245

May 31, 2026
Print

Later, Shkanevsky again contacted some of the suppliers and reminded them that he was still waiting for the offer (e.g., N/269, N/270, appeals to Shahar dated 11 March 2012, 12 March 2012, 18 March 2012; N/80, contact with Chasia from Triple C dated 12 March 2012).

  1. On the evening of March 11, 2012, an e-mail correspondence took place between Shahar and Gilad, attributing, according to all the evidence presented, an understanding between Wee and Harel, according to which Harel would be the winner of the MPR(X) and  that Wei would submit an offer higher than Harel's in accordance with the price that Gilad would send to Shahar.

At first, Shachar gave Gilad the UAV that Shekanevsky had sent to accompany the contents of the equipment for pricing, while writing to Gilad, "What do we do? It is mine and there is no argument" (P/403).  Gilad replied to Shachar within a short time, "It's an MPR, you've already got their storage, you bastard...  I will send you something to send" (P/404, underline added).  To this, Shachar replied, "But it's mine" (P/405).

Shachar first testified that he had written to Gilad because he (Shahar) might have wanted to win the project (p. 2925, s. 26, p. 2926, s. 1) and that Gilad replied that since it was the value that supplied the storage systems for the project, Gilad wanted to win the supply of the X servers (p. 2926, s. 9-13).  Afterwards, Shahar testified that he wrote what he wrote to Gilad with humor, that he had harassed Gilad, but that in practice, despite what was written, "this is not an argument, it is just a joke" and that it was clear that this was a project of Harel (p. 2926, s. 17 - p. 2927, s. 8).  Similarly, he testified that he just wanted to annoy Gilad and in fact told Gilad that he would send him (to Shahar) some offer to make to Mamen in response to Shaknevsky's request (p. 3029, paras. 21 - p. 3030, para. 16, where he confirmed his statement from his interrogation, P/557(1) paras. 519-530).

As we shall see immediately, some time later Gilad sent Shahar the price quote that he had asked for a value to submit, and Shahar did indeed submit a price quote to Shaknevsky on behalf of Wee as Gilad had requested and in accordance with the prices that Gilad had sent (P/353, P/120, P/121).

  1. The picture that emerges from the evidence is unequivocal: Wee and Harel have reached an arrangement whereby Wee will submit an offer to BMR MPR(X) at a  price that will be coordinated with Harel.  In practice, the defendants do not dispute in any real way that this was the understanding and that this was what Gilad and Shahar intended in their correspondence.  The arguments that were raised, including that Harel's win over the supply of X servers  for the project was guaranteed, that it was unnecessary coordination, that it was a fictitious CBM or that Zeiger was not part of the arrangement or was not aware of it, we will deal separately below.
  2. On March 13, 2012 and March 14, 2012 – that is, two days after the aforementioned correspondence between Gilad and Shachar – additional e-mail correspondence was made regarding the MPR(X) BLM. First internal correspondence within Harel between Gilad and Zeiger, followed by correspondence between Harel and Wee, and between Harel and Triple C.  As we shall see below, it is clear from the evidence that the internal correspondence between Gilad and Zeiger revolved around the planning of the coordinated proposals, i.e., the prices of the proposals, the value and triple C that will be asked to be submitted to the financier.  Gilad then contacted Levi and Triple C and sent them the price quotes that should be submitted to Maman, and at the end of the day, Shahar even submitted the Wee offer exactly as requested.  The arguments raised by Zeiger regarding the content of the correspondence and the manner in which he understood them in real time will be addressed separately.  As it seems, the claims that are inconsistent with the documents from real time and that were unreliable should be rejected.
  3. On the evening of March 13, 2012 (8:04 p.m.), Gilad sent Zeiger an e-mail in which he wrote: "It's a companion" and "I haven't sent it yet." Gilad attached to the notice a price quote file in the total amount of $328,909 "IAI Price" (P/352).  This is a price quote that Gilad originally intended to send to Shachar as a price quote, a value that will be submitted to the BLM accordingly and further to the settlement.  This price is higher than the price offered by Harel to the project's personnel even before the combined BLM (N/79, which amounts to $297,356; see also paragraph 964 above).
  4. That evening, 13 March 2012, shortly afterwards (20:32), Gilad sent Zeiger another email message (P/116, P/409). To the email, Gilad attached three Excel files, which are three price quotes.  Two of the bids have no logo and no indication of the name of the bidding company: one for a total of $357,646 and the other for a total of $364,691.  The third bid included Harel's logo and was for  a total of $332,578.  In the body of the message, Gilad wrote to Tzaeger as follows:

"I haven't sent it to anyone yet

Previous part1...244245
246...286Next part