Therefore, these arguments should also be rejected.
General Statute of Limitations Claim
- The defendants raised a general statute of limitations in accordance with section 149(8) of the Criminal Procedure Law (see paragraphs 612-614 for the summaries of Wei and Oshri). According to the claim, the offenses attributed to the defendants by virtue of the Competition Law – offenses of a party to a restrictive arrangement and offenses of an officer's liability under section 48 of the Law – have become obsolete. This is with the exception of the charges of offenses of fraudulent receipt under aggravated circumstances (according to a specific statute of limitations that was raised, but in relation to offenses under section 48 of the Law, we will deal separately below).
- This is the essence of the argument: these are misdemeanor offenses (section 24 of the Penal Law). The limitation period is five years (section 9(a)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Law). The indictment was filed on February 26, 2017, and more than five years have passed since it was filed, as a result of which the statute of limitations has been applied.
- The claim should be rejected.
Section 9(c1) of the Criminal Procedure Law instructs that: "In an offense of the type of felony or misdemeanor that occurs within the aforesaid periods... If an indictment has been filed in respect of them or a court proceeding has been conducted, the count of the periods stated in subsection (a) shall begin on the day of the filing of the indictment or on the day of the last proceeding by the court, whichever is later" (this provision was included prior to Amendment No. 87 of 2019 within the scope of section 9(c) of the Law). This is one of the exceptions that interrupt the statute of limitations, which means 'resetting' the statute of limitations so that it begins to be recounted (see and compare, among many, Criminal Appeal 4991/24 State of Israel v. Ze'evi, at paragraph 16 of the judgment of the Honorable Justice Y. Elron (February 6, 2025)).