Appeal to Triple C (Chasia) - At 4:39 P.M., a few minutes earlier, Gilad sent Chassia of Triple C an email to which he attached a price quote for a civil appeal in the total amount of $357,646 (P/119, P/118). Gilad wrote Zeiger in a copy of the message. The price quote that Shachar sent to Chassia is exactly one of the two price quotes without the logo that Gilad had attached to Seeger the previous evening in a notice that revolved around the planning of the coordination (P/116; although, as stated, the price of the offer sent to Triple C corresponds to the price that was intended for the accompanying in the first place). The evidence clearly shows that Gilad sent Chasia a price quote in order for her to submit it to fund as her Triple C offer, just as he sent the Wee offer to Shahar at the same time and in accordance with the correspondence with Zeiger about the planning of the coordination from the previous evening. As stated above, the arguments raised by Harel and Zeiger regarding the content of the correspondence and the manner in which Zeiger understood them will be addressed later and it appears that they are not acceptable.
- Summary so far: Gilad and Shahar have reached an arrangement according to which Wei will submit a coordinated price quote with Harel so that Harel will win the BAM. Afterwards, a correspondence was made between Gilad and Zeiger, both in relation to the price of the bid that Harel would submit and in relation to the prices of the more expensive bids, and Triple C would be asked to submit to the BMC. Subsequently, Gilad submitted to finance Harel's cheaper offer. At the same time, Gilad sent Chassia from Triple C (with a copy to Zeiger) and Shahar the price quotes they had to submit to Maman, in accordance with the prices previously set in the correspondence between him and Zeiger.
- As we will see below, at the end of the day, Triple C did not submit a bid to the MPR(X) BMR , while Wei submitted a more expensive bid than Harel's bid in a coordinated manner.
- On March 15, 2012 (09:31), Chassia from Triple C responded to the price quote Gilad sent her and wrote to Zeiger, "Yossi, these numbers are problematic for me. I will contact you. Chasya" (P/81). On the same day, shortly after (09:54), Chassia sent an email to Schneevsky and wrote to him: "Good morning Alex, as we talked, I promised to make the effort, but I got bad prices so I prefer not to serve the X and Blade servers. As for the Unix servers, it continues to search... Thank you for the opportunity" (P/80, N/382). Chassia did not testify at the trial. Zeiger tried to find support in this statement for his version regarding the content and the manner in which he understood the correspondence between him and Gilad, which we will discuss separately. In any event, Triple C announced that it would not submit a bid to the MPR(X) Battalion (see also: S. 5 to P/114, Triple C submitted NO BID).
- On March 25, 2012 (1:16 p.m.), Gilad sent Shahar an email in which he wrote, "Send it to Alex," to which he attached an updated price quote for a total of $392,894 (P/120, underline added; Shahar, p. 2927, paras. 9-13, this is the suggestion that Gilad wants Shachar to send to Alex; Gilad updated the percentage of the discount that Wii will offer as well as the number of units of one of the components of the contents).
- On the same day, March 25, 2012, shortly afterwards (2:49 p.m.), Shachar sent an e-mail to Sknevsky in which he submitted the price quote on behalf of Wee, bearing the Wee logo, in the sum of $392,894, exactly as requested by Gilad (P/121, P/115, P/247). Shachar testified that he sent to finance the proposal that Gilad asked him to submit (p. 2929, paras. 29-32; it appears that Shahar even sent Gilad a copy of the proposal he submitted to Schneevsky in order to inform him that he had acted as requested, Shahar, p. 2930, paras. 1-9; para. 780 of Harel's summaries).
- At the same time, on the same day, 25 March 2012 (14:23), Gilad sent Shakanevsky an updated price quote from Harel to Balam in the amount of $347,765 (P/354; this proposal is based on the Comptroller General's discount for all the contents, in contrast to some of the previous proposals, for example, P/112). Harel's offer was the cheaper offer, and after negotiations with Maman, Harel agreed to give an additional discount of about $5,000, so that its offer amounted to a total of $342,544 (paragraphs 7-8 of P/114, P/113, P/115, P/355, para. 792 of Harel's summaries; on March 26, 2012, Harel was given a special by IBM (P/215)).
- On March 28, 2012, Shekanevsky wrote to his superiors Peretz and for the purpose of "a summary of the negotiations" and a summary of the procurement process in the MPR(X) Combat Operations Unit (P/114). Shkanevsky noted that based on the proposals received, Harel is the winning supplier (para. 6 ibid.).
- On April 2, 2012, Harel issued an order for the purchase of the contents of the Balam in the amount of $342,544 (P/105, P/402).
- Interim summary: The evidence paints a clear picture. Wei and Harel were parties to the arrangement whereby Wei would submit a higher price quote to BMC MPR(X) than Harel's. The parties to the arrangement were, in addition to the companies, Gilad and Zeiger of Harel and Shahar Moy. The parties even executed the arrangement, and Wei and Shahar submitted a coordinated proposal as agreed. Zeiger's arguments regarding the content of the correspondence and his awareness of the matter will be dealt with separately. As it seems, the arguments should be rejected and it should be determined that it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Zeiger was a party to the settlement. In addition, Gilad, Zeiger and Harel even tried to be a party to an arrangement with Chasia and Triple C, according to which Triple C would also submit a more coordinated offer than Harel's offer (although it was not proven at the required level that Triple C reached an understanding of such an arrangement, and it was not implemented).
- In the indictment, the defendants were also charged with the offense of fraudulent receipt.
- Gilad, Zeiger and Shahar did not disclose the coordination to the funder and misrepresented that the proposals were submitted independently and without coordination.
- The evidence indicates that the procurement officials, Maman's people, did not know about the coordination.
Shkanevsky testified that he did not know about the coordination correspondence between Gilad and Shahar, and that if he had known, he would have brought the matter to his superiors in order to instruct him on what to do and how to move forward with the deal, if at all (Shkanevsky, p. 906, paras. 16-19). His testimony was not concealed. In fact, it was supported by the defendants' own statements (e.g., Zeiger, P/220, paras. 497-498, where he noted that Shkanevsky "absolutely not" knew about Gilad's correspondence with Wee and Triple C; Shahar, p. 2929, paras. 17-21, Shahar testified that he did not tell Schneevsky or anyone else in a civil appeal that he had spoken with the competitors about submitting proposals, and that the civil appeal staff did not tell him to speak to the competitors; These statements of Shachar against the interest should be clearly preferred to other things that he said in his cross-examination, while sweeping confirmation of what was offered to him, for example, p. 3270, paras. 2-7). Wei claimed in her summaries that Shachar had spoken with Shekanevsky about the interrogation (no basis was laid for them to discuss the content of the interrogation, p. 1060, s. 20 - p. 1061, s. 24, with reference to P/557(5) s. 148-163); Wei also referred to correspondence between Shachar and Schneevsky, which, in her view, indicate a friendly relationship between the two (for example, N/87 (referring someone's resume to Shahar and the use of the phrase "friend"), N/88 (referring to the phrase "my brother") and N/89 (about the timing of the event); The aforesaid does not indicate the existence of a real friendship or closeness as claimed). In any event, none of this changes the assessment of Shekanevsky's testimony and the conclusion that he did not know about the coordination correspondence that was supported as stated above.