The result is that the defendants' claims regarding the investigation against IBM do not cast any doubt on the evidentiary fabric that substantiates their guilt or indicate that their defense or right to a fair trial has been deprived.
- In summary: The Authority's investigation into our case was enormous in scope. The defendants' claims of defects in the investigation do not change the incriminating result that clearly emerges from the evidence that clearly indicates that they were parties to improper price coordination arrangements, and the allegations do not give rise to a concern that their defense was deprived.
- A note regarding the petition of Wei and Oshri – even before the hearing of the evidence, Wei and Oshri raised claims of various defects, within the framework of a petition they filed to cancel the indictment on the basis of the doctrine of administrative review in criminal cases (amended petition dated April 9, 2018, completion of argument dated December 6, 2018; at the time the petition was filed, the judgments had not yet been rendered in the Criminal Appeals Authority 7052/18 State of Israel v. Rotem (May 5, 2020) and in additional criminal hearing 5387/20 Rotem v. State of Israel (15 December 2021). In the hearing on 18 October 2020, Counsel Wei and Oshri announced that they would not stand by the petition without detracting from the arguments on their merits (p. 44, paras. 11-12). In the margins of their summaries, Wei and Oshri sought to rule on the petition (para. 629 of the Wee summaries).
The petition alleges, inter alia, a violation of the accuser's duty of fairness and scandalous conduct on her part, including in the wording of the indictment and the manner in which the investigation was conducted, while ignoring its proper context. The cornerstone of the arguments is the recurring claim that the entire conduct concerned IAI's "deception", "fictitious" and "appearance" "false tenders" and that there was no competition or feasibility of competition in the first place. These arguments were all discussed on their merits as part of the hearing of the above charges. It turns out that they cannot be accepted and that they do not change the incriminating conclusion. It is enough to refer to what is said there.