In view of the above, Zeiger's second explanation and the aforementioned arguments of Zeiger and Harel should also be rejected.
- The bottom line: The evidence clearly shows that Zeiger was aware of the coordination arrangement with Wei and the attempt to coordinate with Triple C. He was addressed in real time to key e-mails, both regarding coordination with Wii (P/352), and with Triple C (P/118, P/119), and to an e-mail in which Gilad compiled in advance the prices that the other suppliers would be asked to submit (P/116). We have seen that Zeiger's version and explanations in relation to the manner in which he understood the correspondence sent to him in real time should be rejected. These are inconsistent with the documents and have been found to be conspicuously unreliable (without even requiring that Zeiger was a party to previous coordination arrangements and similar coordinated emails in relation to previous charges; see, for example, regarding the tenth charge, paragraphs 569-572, 581-591 above).
- As stated above, Gilad sent Zeiger key e-mails regarding coordination and promotion, and even before sending the coordination prices to Acai and Triple C, "I have not yet sent" (P/116, P/352; In his interrogation, Zeiger confirmed that Gilad had sent him the statements in order for Zeiger to approve them, P/220, paras. 185-188, and that he had approved the price data to Gilad, P/220, paras. 231-232; Although, as stated above, he raised explanations that were rejected; His attempt to distance himself from what he said in the testimony and to claim that no confirmation was required from him (p. 6076, paras. 24-31, contradicted what he said in the interrogation and was not reliable). In these circumstances, Harel and Zeiger's claim that Gilad acted behind Zeiger's back and that he refrained from writing to him on price coordination notices should be rejected. This is not what the evidence shows, and this is not how those who try to hide act act. The fact that Gilad did not address Zeiger about all of the coordination correspondence or the follow-up correspondence with Shachar does not detract from the clear picture that emerges regarding Zeiger's involvement and his awareness of the matter.
- To this, it should be added that this was a large project. Zeiger was personally involved in Harel's moves in connection with the project. Zeiger testified that he is involved in such a large project together with Gilad, "Of course. Yes", including with regard to the submission of Harel's proposal for the project (p. 6077, paras. 22-23); Zeiger testified that he was involved in the deal, sat with Gilad, sat with IAI, sat with ELTA and was involved with the technical division (p. 6098, paras. 20-24). Zeiger was also involved with Gilad, according to his own opinion, Gilad approached him in order to obtain his approval, and Zeiger accompanied and even approved the submission of the price quote on behalf of Harel to the MPR(X) now under discussion (e.g., P/117, P/220, S. 404-405, S. 228-232, S. 328-329).
- In this state of affairs – when Zeiger is informed in real time about the coordination arrangement, when he is personally involved in the project as the senior official on behalf of Harel, and when he is involved in promoting Harel's moves in response to the CBM, including in submitting Harel's proposal later on and following the coordination, the clear conclusion is that he was a party to the coordination arrangement with Wei and the attempt to coordinate with Triple C.
The claims that MPR(X) was fictitious, as if Harel's win was promised in advance should be rejected – and these do not justify or legitimize the coordination of proposals
- The defendants claimed that the MPR(X) was also fictitious and that Harel's victory in it was guaranteed in advance. The defense based these arguments, inter alia, on the fact that the equipment carrying the UAV was such that the Comptroller's agreement could be applied to it, and therefore – this is the argument – that the civil appeal had no option but to purchase it from Harel (e.g., paras. 789, 778 of Harel's summaries; see also Zeiger's testimony, at p. 5374, paras. 17-20, that the transaction with Harel was "closed" and IBM went along with it); It was further argued that Harel was the one who characterized the procurement content for the project at Elta in a way that effectively ensured its winning (e.g., paragraphs 779, 791 of Harel's summaries, paragraphs 551-554 of the Wii summaries; while referring to the technical specifications P/107(a)-(c) where it was noted "assembly in the Harel laboratory" and to the testimony of Shkanevsky that in such a situation the project considers the doubt that it characterized as having "half won the project as far as it is concerned", and this can "frustrate" other suppliers, who may think that the project can at any moment appoint a single supplier, p. 1031, s. 17 - p. 1032, s. 5); It was further argued that the WI was nothing more than a "show" for the purpose of "arranged" the procurement file (e.g., paras. 556-559 of the Wee summaries; Appealing, inter alia, to N/269, N/270 and to Shahar's testimony, p. 3271, paras. 1-5, that Shaknevsky should have Shachar in the play, p. 3031, paras. 7-19).
- These arguments must be rejected. Such arguments that were raised in relation to the previous charges were rejected, and the reasons given above apply here as well. As already noted, these arguments do not justify or justify an arrangement for coordinating price quotes. Let us briefly address the main points.
- With regard to the arguments based on the Comptroller General's agreement , we saw above that even when the contents of the procurement were included in the Comptroller Agreement, this did not automatically guarantee Harel that he would win the project, because Zeiger and Harel knew this, and that they knew that even in this state of affairs, civil undermining was a competition that Harel feared (see at length in paragraphs 327-335 above; as already noted above, Nor is there any basis for the claim that the civil appeal was obligated to purchase the equipment from Harel (paragraph 32 of Zeiger's reply to the indictment); In any event, such a claim on the contractual level does not justify or legitimize coordination, see paragraph 180 above).
This is all the more true in the case where only a relatively small part of the procurement content falls within the scope of the Comptroller General's agreement (see paragraph 1002 above, and Harel's proposals to the Comptroller General's proposal at certain stages did not include a Comptroller General's assumption in relation to most of the equipment, for example, P/112; as opposed to its final proposal P/354). As Peretz testified, he clarified to Zeiger that when the contents of the procurement include components that are not under the Comptroller General's agreement, a civil appeal opens the procurement to competition (p. 1735, paras. 14-20; and see also paragraph 333 above). It is not for nothing that Peretz testified in relation to the BLA now under discussion – and his testimony must be accepted – 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 that are not part of the Comptroller General's agreement (p. 1612, para. 19 - p. 1613, para. 15; See also P/114, para. 4, and the testimony of Shakanevsky that he wanted to maintain competition between all the suppliers in order to reach the cheapest price, p. 977, paras. 5-10, 17-18, p. 978, para. 3; The fact that Harel ultimately received a special from IBM (N/215), for which it did not refer in its summaries in the section in question, regardless of the feasibility of competition, and the fact that there is no permit to coordinate prices, see also the discussion in paragraph 1071 onwards below).