Peretz, who was Shkanevsky's manager, and who was involved in the project and instructed Shekanevsky to issue a summary document of negotiations (p. 1611, paras. 14-17; P/114 sent to Peretz), testified that he "unequivocally" did not know about the e-mail correspondence between the suppliers, between Gilad and Shahar (p. 1612, paras. 4-8). Peretz's testimony aroused resentment over the correspondence, with Peretz emphasizing in his testimony that he expected the suppliers to compete with each other, to "fight", to offer the best price they could, especially when it comes to procurement content that includes systems for which there is no framework agreement (which do not fall within the scope of the Comptroller General's agreement) (p. 1612, para. 19 - p. 1613, para. 15). These words have not been contradicted and must be accepted.
Leshem, who was Peretz's supervisor, testified that he did not know in real time about the correspondence between the suppliers and that if he had known he would have stopped it at that moment, he would not have agreed to it (p. 2115, para. 24 - p. 2116, s. 7). This testimony was not contradicted either, and it must be accepted.
- In these circumstances, the elements of the offense of fraudulent receipt also exist: fraud by submitting bids to finance while failing to disclose the coordination of the proposals and by misrepresentation (see paragraphs 27-28 above); Acceptance of the matter – Maman's assumption regarding the validity of the bids and the procedure and the selection of Harel for the supply of the procurement contents (see paragraph 29 above) when the causal connection arises from the above evidence that shows that had it not been for the concealment, the procurement entities would have acted differently. Since the fraudulent acts are based on another offense – a restrictive arrangement – while harming the competitive process of a public body and public funds, taking into account the financial scope (approximately $340,000), and in view of the systematic nature of the acts, these are aggravating circumstances, in accordance with the criteria set out in the case law (see paragraph 31 above).
Reference to the defense's arguments
- The defendants raised a series of defense arguments.
One argument related to the content of the email correspondence, i.e., to the factual element. Zeiger and Harel sought to distinguish in this context between Gilad's conduct vis-à-vis Shahar and his conduct with Chassia from Triple C. According to them, in contrast to the conduct with Shachar, which is in the form of improper price coordination (for example, paragraphs 780, 788 of Harel's summaries), the conduct with Triple C, to which Zeiger was a party, was a legitimate offer in which Gilad proposed to Triple C to purchase from Harel the contents of the UAV equipment (paras. 784-785 of Harel's summaries).