Moreover, Zeiger's testimony and the version that it was a matter of prices at which Harel offered to sell the contents of the equipment to the other suppliers – and for our purposes, because this is how Zeiger understood things – was mine-based, lackluster and unreliable.
No evidentiary basis was laid for the fact that such acquaintance with Levi or Triple C – and certainly not for both – was considered or discussed in relation to the BLA in question, and in any case Zeiger had a basis to think that this was the intention (and compare in this regard the e-mail correspondence between Zeiger and Nahum, the subject of the seventeenth indictment).
In addition, Zeiger's version that it is possible that these were sale prices by Harel to the other suppliers, or that he thought so, is inconsistent with his own testimony, which indicates that such a sale from Harel to the other suppliers was not a reasonable or possible scenario in the circumstances of the case. Far from it. Zeiger testified that according to IBM's rules, Harel is forbidden to sell to another party, including other suppliers, the contents of equipment that was entered into the Comptroller General's agreement and for which Harel received a discount from the Comptroller General, and that such a sale in violation of IBM's rules may even result in sanctions on IBM's part, including fines and in exceptional cases even the denial of partnership with IBM (pp. 5661-5663, p. 5403, S. 4-7, S. 6064, S. 21-23, P. 6092, S. 7-12). Zeiger testified that such a sale rarely occurs (p. 5664, paras. 9-10); because it is reasonable to assume that he never made such a sale, which is known as "the leak of hands" (p. 6067, paras. 14-16); that such a sale of the Comptroller's equipment to another supplier entails a risk vis-à-vis IBM and is liable to entangle Harel with IBM (p. 5664, paras. 9-10, p. 6093, paras. 8-15); Zeiger testified that if IBM had known about an attempt to sell to another supplier in such a case, "I would have accepted it on my head" (p. 6068, paras. 14-17), and that according to him, in fact, such a sale to another supplier is not possible in large transactions (p. 5662, paras. 4-5, it is impossible to slip hands into large transactions). This is enough to undermine the argument and the possibility that when Zeiger received the e-mails from Gilad, including the prices of the coordination – the prices of the Wii and Triple C and the price proposals for a civil appeal accordingly – he thought or could have believed that the reference was to the prices at which Harel offered the other two suppliers to purchase the equipment from it. This is where no evidence was presented that such a possibility was considered, and whereas according to Zeiger, Harel is prohibited from selling to the other suppliers the contents of the equipment in question in the circumstances of the case, and when such a sale is liable to complicate Harel vis-à-vis IBM. In this context, Zeiger and Harel also referred to parts of Orshitzer's testimony (paras. 793-794 of Harel's summaries). However, there is nothing in the name that will benefit them or change them. Orshitzer did not refer there to the equipment on which the Comptroller of the Corps was assigned, and in any event, he testified that the possibility of such a sale from a supplier is an extreme and rare case in a way that undermines Zeiger's claim that this is how he understood the e-mails he received (Orshitzer, p. 2414, s. 26 - p. 2415, s. 9; p. 2466, s. 28 - p. 2467, s. 2).