Hence, these are various offenses in which there is no impediment to convicting one defendant.
The Third Charge
The Third Charge: VMware Lab for the Iron Dome Project - December 2009
- The third indictment was directed at Shahar, Oshri and Wee; Gilad, and Harel. According to the indictment, on December 15, 2009, Elta Levy and Harel applied for quotes for the VMware lab (VMware Lab). The aforementioned defendants were attributed to having been a party to an arrangement whereby Harel would submit a higher bid than Wee's in order to enable Wei to win VMware Labs. In accordance with the attribution, the parties submitted bids in accordance with the arrangement – a bid in the amount of about $55,000, Harel an offer in the sum of about $60,000, and based on these proposals, ELTA decided to make the purchase from Vi (in the amount of about $30,000 after it was decided not to purchase one component). It is also attributed to the defendants mentioned in this indictment that they presented Elta with a false representation according to which their proposal was submitted independently, without consultation, coordination or contact with another bidder, and in any event they did not disclose the fact of coordination between them (the misrepresentation) and that based on the misrepresentation, ELTA's assumption regarding the validity of the bids was accepted and Wee's offer was accepted as the winner. Oshri was also credited with not being supervised and did everything possible to prevent an offense under the Competition Law. As stated above, Shahar and Gilad's case ended in plea bargains. Shahar and Gilad were convicted of the offense of a party to a restrictive arrangement regarding the VMware Lab Communications Unit. With regard to the remaining defendants, on the basis of the aforesaid, the offense of a party to a restrictive arrangement under section 47(a)(1) of the Law as drafted at the relevant time together with sections 2(a), 2(b)(1), 2(b)(3), 4 and 55a(b) of the Competition Law. In relation to Levy and Harel, the indictment refers to section 23(a)(2) of the Penal Law. Oshri is also attributed the responsibility of officers by virtue of Section 48 of the Competition Law. The defendants are also charged with the offense of fraudulently receiving something under aggravated circumstances, according to section 415 of the Penal Law.
Discussion