The bottom line: A few months before the first indictment meeting, Harel and Sayeger lost a project in a civil appeal and realized that even when it comes to equipment that falls within the scope of the Comptroller's Agreement, Harel's win is not guaranteed, and that there is a competitive concern on the part of the other suppliers, such as Wii and Triple C. Zeiger himself threatened Oshri with a competitive response, including by lowering prices and harming profitability. In this situation, Harel's claim that she had no interest in an arrangement that would reduce competition and the fear that arises from competition should not be accepted. On the contrary, the state of affairs in the period preceding the first indictment is consistent with Shahar's testimony, as quoted above, according to which Harel had an interest in an arrangement that would prevent competition and that this was Zeiger's position that he asked for value and that Triple C would not interfere with Harel in the places where she works (p. 2644, paras. 16-23).
- Later on, we will address in more detail the defense arguments raised by the defendants, mainly Zeiger and Harel, on the basis of the Comptroller General's agreement and its alleged implications for competition (see paragraphs 325-333 below). At this stage, it should be noted, in summary, that Zeiger and Harel had arguments against a civil appeal, according to which even in cases where the Comptroller's agreement applied, according to Zeiger, and in which a civil appeal, according to him, required a civil appeal to purchase the equipment from Harel, the civil appeal acted to request price quotes from others. This conduct created a competitive concern.
- Zeiger made a connection between the alleged conduct of IAI and its "whims" in his interrogation, and his very presence in the interrogation room on suspicion of prohibited coordination. According to him, due to this conduct of the civil appeal, which, in his view, violates the Comptroller General's agreement, "... Here I am sitting here because of this. or at least it has a significant part in this matter" (P/222, paras. 55-56, after the description in paras. 40-54). It was clear from this that Zeiger was trying to explain the coordination in relation to which Harel was being investigated and its competitors - including Wii and Triple C - for IAI's violating conduct. Immediately afterwards, Zeiger replied that due to IAI's conduct, Gilad should be in contact with the other competitors in order to make sure that Harel was not losing, and that he, Zeiger, was aware of this (P/222, paras. 57-63). This is the beginning of gratitude that Harel has worked to coordinate with its competitors. When asked about this in his testimony, Zeiger replied in an evasive and unconvincing manner, without any real explanation in his mouth, and while trying to refute what he said during the interrogation and claim that he said that what he said was because the interrogation "really did not please me," that he did not remember what he meant, because it is possible that "I made a mistake in the wording... out of pressure" (p. 5622, s. 22-25 and in general p. 5616, s. 15 - p. 5622; and p. 5626, paras. 22-24, p. 5627, paras. 19-22, and see the difficult and evasive answers also in response to repeated questions of the court, pp. 5629-5623). Zeiger's words are meant to undermine the allegations as if Harel had no interest
- to settle the subject of the first indictment. Thinking in response to repeated questions of the court, pp. 56239-5623In view of the Comptroller General's agreement, Harel had no interest in reaching the partition agreement that is the subject of the first indictment, and providing additional support for the evidence in relation to this arrangement.
- In their summaries, Zeiger and Harel further argued that no restrictive arrangement was made at the meeting; that no common understanding was created; that each of the participants in the meeting sought to achieve a different goal; that Naveh's statements in his testimony and interrogation, according to which there was a conclusion that in projects in which one of the companies had won in the past and a civil appeal was requesting a price quote for the continuation of "to try to allow the continuation" did not establish an agreement and the expression "to try"" does not reflect a binding agreement; that an expectation or hope expressed by a participant in the meeting is not a restrictive arrangement; Because each of the participants in the meeting came only with the aim of revealing the secrets of the others, and even that did not succeed; that the arrangement referred to is not sufficiently specific and does not include, inter alia, a common goal and a way to achieve it; Because even if it is determined that Zeiger asked for value and Triple C will not interfere with Harel in the places where she works, this is not a restrictive arrangement since no consideration was offered, and this is a unilateral demand that was not agreed.
These arguments should not be accepted.