Criminal Case (Jerusalem) 54589-02-17 State of Israel v. Oshri Sharon - part 271

This is also true in relation to the arguments raised by the defense regarding additional deficiencies.  Thus, the arguments with respect to an internal audit report prepared in a civil appeal and the raw material used to prepare it should not be accepted.  No basis has been laid for the fact that these are relevant to our case.  The audit report was made available to the court, which determined that the strength of the relevance of what is stated in the report to the charges here is very low and that there is insufficient justification to make it, in whole or in part, available for review by the defense (paragraph 11 of the decision of the Honorable Judge A. Shaham of June 3, 2019; support for this arises from the testimony of Koffler, p. 6600, paras. 18-20, according to which the report did not relate to any of the transactions in the indictment; in partial and unclear statements to which the defense referred,  The main arguments that arise in the defense attorney's question are without actual approval from the witness being questioned, for example, Marcus, pp. 3973-3975; Peretz, 1634, paras. 13-19, paras. 25-27, there is no change in this regard).  Even the arguments raised by the defense regarding the failure to carry out the necessary investigative actions in order to locate a certain email message that the defense became aware of, cannot be changed.  The defense is referring to the accuser's 2018 appeal to the accuser, claiming that she became aware of the existence of certain email correspondence (N/316, N/317).  Following the request, the investigating authority carried out investigative actions in an attempt to locate the correspondence (P/581, p. 319 of the file onwards), but at the end of the day no correspondence was found, as claimed in a search of the procurement systems and other sources (P/581, p. 331 of the file; see also details of actions at pp. 349, 352, 354 of the file).  The investigating authority therefore took investigative actions even if additional actions could have been taken (in any event, from the details provided by the defense in relation to the figures involved, it appears that the alleged correspondence does not relate to the proceedings that are the subject of the indictment, and it appears that it  relates to the ELA transaction  that was not included in the indictment).