Criminal Case (Jerusalem) 54589-02-17 State of Israel v. Oshri Sharon - part 275

The defense also referred to the email correspondence N/97.  This is a request by Shachar to Gilad to coordinate the price of an offer that Gilad will submit to Elta, when Shahar also answered Labid from IBM and asked for his help with Elta.  This correspondence also clearly shows that it was the suppliers – not IBM – who initiated the coordination arrangements and were the driving force behind the coordination.  At the same time, it is possible that with regard to this particular coordination (which was not included in the indictment), Lavid was aware of the matter (Levid denied this in his testimony and it was accepted, see paragraph 735 above).  Indeed, it seems that in this context there was room to interrogate Lapid (see also Arbiv's testimony, that there was room to interrogate Levid about the correspondence and to inquire with him, and that it is possible that something was missed here, p. 4160, s. 12 - p. 4161, s. 4; Marcus, p. 3971, s. 17-23).  This is not how we will do it.  However, even if there was room to carry out investigative actions in this context that were not taken, there is no basis for us to be dealing with an investigative omission that could cast doubt on the evidence that is based on the defendants' guilt or deprive them of their defense.  Let us recall again: even if it were found that someone from IBM was aware of this or that coordination, as already noted above, the knowledge or involvement of the manufacturer does not justify or legitimize a restrictive arrangement for price adjustment, and these do not establish protection for the parties to the arrangement (see paragraph 855 above).  In the circumstances of the case, and taking into account the overall picture that emerges from the evidence, there is also no basis for the claim of selective enforcement.  The same applies to claims that IBM did not have a valid exemption at relevant times or to the manufacturer's alleged involvement with the customer in connection with the price in cases that are not in the indictment (see paragraphs 1068 and 1081 above).