Oshri himself's description of the course of events that preceded the interrogation indicates that Shahar shared with Oshri his concerns about criminal entanglement, which led him to delete email correspondence that could be incriminating, and even asked Oshri to delete such correspondence himself with Harel to which he is a party. Hence, Shahar clearly saw Oshri as someone who was involved and as a party to the actions and coordination. This is consistent with Shachar's statement regarding Oshri's involvement in coordinating the third indictment – VMware Lab – which was done with Oshri's knowledge, opinion and consent.
Wei and Oshri argued that Shachar's words should not be trusted. Among other things, they pointed out that it was proven that Oshri himself did not delete emails and that the Authority did not find credibility in Shachar's words in his interrogation, as if Oshri was the one who instructed him to delete emails (for example, paragraph 217 of the summaries of Wei and Oshri himself). This does not change the picture and detract from Oshri himself, according to which it is clear that Shahar saw Oshri as someone who was involved in the conduct of the coordination (and there is no similarity between this description of Oshri and the claim regarding a general conversation between Shahar and Alex Sheknevsky (Sheknevsky) from a civil appeal after Shahar's interrogation, p. 1061, paras. 21-24).
Moreover. When Oshri was asked in his first interrogation whether he knew about the Authority's expected investigation, he replied that he had heard of Erez Hershkovitz (from the IBM Business Partners Group) and thought that Harel had told Hershkovitz (P/212, Qs. 271-273, S. 679-681). He was later asked if he had spoken to Shachar about the subject of the investigation, after he had heard about the interrogation or before, to which he answered emphatically "no" (P/212, paras. 675-677). This is despite a number of conversations he had with Shachar, several times, in the days preceding that interrogation, as mentioned above. This is a matter of minefield conduct and actual concealment. We have seen above that Oshri's version of the subject correspondence with VMware Labs should not be accepted. The conversations between Shahar and Oshri prior to the interrogation, and their concealment from the interrogators, also reflect the weight that can be given to Oshri's version and words. The attempt to justify his answers in the interrogation by saying that le-khatḥila he was asked whether he had spoken to Shachar about the subjects of the interrogation and not about the interrogation (P/212, paras. 733-736), is not convincing, to say the least. In particular, taking into account that it became clear that, according to Oshri himself, the conversations revolved around concerns about criminal nature in the email correspondence with competitors, which are the topics of the investigation. Even the references in the Wei and Oshri summaries to what Oshri gave later in the interrogation – and after he was suspected of disruption – about his early conversations with Shahar (for the duration of the summaries, paras. 220-221 of the summaries), do not change the picture of the attempt to conceal in the first place.