Therefore, these arguments of the defense should not be accepted as well.
- Another argument raised by the defense for the flaw in the investigation revolved around the fact that the investigating authority did not act to interrogate IBM representatives with a warning (see, for example, paragraphs 597-604 of Wee's summaries; paragraphs 155-156 and 152 of Shohat's summaries). This, the defendants claimed, despite indications that emerged from the investigative materials regarding improper conduct on the part of IBM and without explanation for it.
Here, too, there is no basis for the conduct of the investigating authority amounting to an investigative failure that could have harmed or deprived the defendants' defense.
As stated in detail above, IBM operated in the vertical link. It was not a party to the horizontal coordination arrangements between the suppliers-defendants-competitors. No evidentiary basis was laid for the fact that IBM was involved in the coordination of price quotes between the suppliers in the charges before us or at all, and in any case no evidence was presented that IBM initiated or directed the price coordination between the suppliers as alleged (above, the defense's arguments in this context were rejected in an attempt to build, inter alia, from the emails N/97 and N/99, see, for example, paragraph 735 above). On the contrary, the evidence clearly shows that it was the suppliers-defendants who initiated and led the price adjustment arrangements. To the extent that IBM was involved, one could expect that this would be significantly reflected in the evidence, and that the defendants themselves would have correspondence and evidence to support it. The indications that the defendants pointed to as raising suspicion of improper conduct on the part of IBM were based mainly on feelings and reasoning. It is doubtful whether these established a basis for the suspicion that he justified an investigation with the warning of someone from IBM (thus, the defense referred to Shkedi's statement in his interrogation, which referred to his feelings, "I felt that they [IBM] were deciding on the division of the market" and the testimonies of investigators Marcus and Hadar Adawi in connection with this, p. 3967, paras. 8-14, p. 3903, paras. 10-24; It also referred to the statements made by Israel Vionte of Maman Procurement in his interrogation regarding direct procurement from IBM and the comment that he commented that if any of IBM's suppliers had offered a cheaper offer, it would have been "probably in coordination with IBM because they [the suppliers] receive the offers [from IBM]" (N/426, p. 7, paras. 167-168); The significance of this is not clear enough; In his testimony, Vionte testified that he knew nothing of the coordination correspondence between the suppliers, P/264, p. 6323, s. 6; In N/83 (which does not relate to the charges before us) also does not contain what the defense finds, and it does not make any reference to the coordination of price proposals).