Criminal Case (Jerusalem) 54589-02-17 State of Israel v. Oshri Sharon - part 270

The Investigative Authority carried out a comprehensive investigation in which it acted both initially, in investigative and supplementary activities prior to the filing of the indictment, and after the hearing on August 6, 2018, in order to obtain all the documents relevant to the procurement proceedings that are the subject of the charges under discussion from IAI.  This was done by obtaining judicial orders against IAI, by the investigators arriving at the civil appeals courts to accompany and locate relevant documents, and by making targeted inquiries regarding these and other documents along the way (a number of investigators testified at the trial, including Haim Arbiv, head of the Investigations Department (Arbiv), and Hamei Marcus, who conducted the investigation (Marcus)).  We have seen above that the investigating authority applied to a civil appeal for the delivery of all the relevant procurement materials for the full contents of the procurement files relating to our case, from all the procurement systems, including the electronic systems, and while referring to the procurement proceedings that are the subject of the indictment, while bringing the relevant details (for example, N/433).  In his testimony at the trial, Koffler, head of software procurement at Maman, referred in detail to the manner in which the materials were collected and produced during the completion of the investigation.  Koffler's testimony indicates that a thorough search was conducted in order to locate all the relevant documents.  Koffler testified that he himself carried out the search in IAI's systems, that he acted to locate the documents included in the ISA's data requirement in relation to all the procurement proceedings that are the subject of the indictment, in various ways, using various search parameters such as order number, item number, customer name, date of purchase, the people involved and any other information according to which it was possible to locate the required information.  He also testified that in cases where he was unable to locate the requested procurement, he also contacted the relevant factory personnel and tried to locate what was needed with their help.  Koffler further testified that after locating the procurement in the system, he produced for the investigating authority and handed over to it all the existing documents in relation to the procurement in question, noting that where he identified duplicates, he transferred only one copy (p. 6618, paras. 1-21).  In his testimony, Koffler referred to the questions raised by the defense and gave a satisfactory answer to these (e.g., p. 6616, paras. 5-14, the screenshot in N/437 was intended to show that this was the relevant order, and scrolling up or down would have presented everything he had located in a way that would reflect the claims of the lack of photography; p. 6619, paras. 1-9, it is possible that when the file was reserved for the purpose of transferring it to the authority, he gave the file a name that better describes the content of the document,  This explains a discrepancy with what is recorded in the screenshot from the system; p. 6610, paras. 8-21, did not save documents that appeared in the duplicate; With regard to a particular project in which he stated that he had approached Gendelman and no procurement documents were located (paragraph 10 of the Civil Code 50/436) – which is the proceeding that is the subject of the seventh indictment – it was not clarified whether the proceeding had matured into actual procurement (see paragraph 486 above), which can explain why in addition to the documents from the project, no procurement documents were located).  These words of Koffler in his testimony were reliable and the explanations he gave should be accepted.  Moreover, in his testimony, Koffler suggested to the defense to verify the matter once again (e.g., p. 6611, paras. 12-17, p. 6612, paras. 6-7) in a manner that supports his testimony.  The defense objected to this (p. 6619, paras. 28-29).  Peretz's testimony also does not support the defense's claims.  Peretz testified that the appeal was civil and that he acted transparently and in full cooperation and transferred to the investigating authority the relevant documents, including documents from the internal network of the civil appeal (p. 1717, paras. 19 - p. 1718, s. 3, memoranda 2-N/138; p. 1649, paras. 25-28, we transferred all the procurement documents from the internal network; p. 1651, paras. 11-14, in the procurement files (which were transferred) there is "the tactical correspondence regarding the order"; p. 1651, s. 22 - p. 1652, s. 2, procurement documents and purchase orders transferred to this defense from IAI's internal network; This is even without the fact that the defendants were given an opportunity to receive a burst of additional documents and they did not act to do so, for example, paragraph 10 of the decision of July 30, 2021, p. 1624, paras. 18-20).  In practice, the trial also presented correspondence between the project's personnel and the procurement bodies, as well as documents originating from the project's technical director (for example, N/29, correspondence dated August 30, 2011 in connection with the Oranim project, the subject of the eleventh indictment; N/11, a single supplier form issued by the project in connection with the Kalanit project, the subject of the fifth indictment).  No evidence was presented that the civil appeal or anyone on its behalf conducted any kind of screening or selectively transferred materials to the investigative authority.  The civil appeal personnel who transferred the procurement materials during the investigation (and even before the completion handled by Koffler) all testified that they had transferred all the materials requested and that even though they were required to obtain approval from the IAI security officer prior to the transfer, there were no documents that the security officer did not approve to be transferred, and the materials were transferred in full.  These testimonies were not concealed (see: Kniturk, p. 510, paras. 8-10, they passed everything without filtering, and see also the description of the search he carried out to locate the required documents, paras. 11-26; Shkanevsky, p. 888, s. 8-15, p. 889, paras. 1-13, they transferred everything, there were no documents that the security officer did not approve, see also the memoranda in P/108, P/109; and see also Mordechai, pp. 1214-1216, pp. 1279-1280,  There, at the request of the defendants, he searched for additional correspondence at a private email address used by him).  According to the defense's own method, it was also handed over documents that are useful to it and support its claims or that are not necessarily convenient for IAI.