In a decision of June 3, 2019, the court ruled that once the documents were completed by a civil appeal to the authority's investigators, this matter had been exhausted (paragraph 17 of the decision). With regard to the defendants' request to receive additional email correspondence from IAI's systems, the court noted the many resources that would be required in order to retrieve materials, search for them, and to filter them (paragraph 26 of the decision). The court ruled that "at this stage, there is no basis to show that the level of potential relevance of the material is high, that the material is at the core of the litigation, or that the authority was obligated to collect all the material as investigative material" (paragraph 27 of the decision). In these circumstances, and since it was the defense that sought to produce the materials, it was determined that the defendants would bear the cost involved, and that subject to this, a civil appeal would operate for their production. The defense did not act as stated. As already noted, requests for reconsideration of the decision were rejected.
- Against the background of these general statements, we will now address the defense's arguments regarding the failures of the investigation. In general, it should be noted that the defense's arguments do not apply to the coordination correspondence itself. These correspondences, which are the focus of the charges discussed above, are clear and unequivocal. The defense's arguments for investigative failures relate to various investigative actions on the grounds that they could, in practice, render the clear price coordination meaningless. This is in an attempt to portray the coordination as meaningless, claiming that the procurement proceedings were in any case only a façade or with the aim of diverting the spotlight to other parties: civil undermining and IBM. As we shall see below, the arguments should not be accepted.
- The defense argued that the accuser did not act to seize all of IAI's procurement files, especially the internal correspondence between the technical director of the project and the procurement bodies, and that the testimonies of IAI personnel, including Koffler's testimony that he coordinated the collection of materials as part of the completion of the investigation, indicate that there are significant deficiencies (in this context, they referred, inter alia, to Koffler's testimony according to which he was unable to locate certain materials, 6603, paras. 21-32, for example, with reference to s. 10 of the Civil Code 50/436; Koffler's testimony that correspondence can help to better understand the conduct even though he emphasized that the great importance is for the formal documents, p. 6613, paras. 28-30, p. 6612, paras. 12-19; Alleged discrepancies between the documents detailed in screenshots taken by Koffler from the SUP system of the Civil Appeal (N/437) and what was transferred to the defense, pp. 6608-6613; Peretz's testimony that the investigator focused on the procurement files and not on the internal correspondence, p. 1649, s. 27 - p. 1650, s. 2; Zagori's testimony that some of the procurement documents that were seized and presented to him, such as the last page of P/49, have no value in his eyes, for example, p. 2221, para. 28 (although it seems that the intention was that it was not a formal document and in any case did not refer to the shortfalls); and more).
These arguments should not be accepted.