Defendant 9, Yaakov Naveh (Naveh), was a sales representative at Triple C who was responsible for a number of large customers, including a civil appeal (p.  62, paras.  21-24).  Naveh's case ended in a conviction following his confession in an amended indictment as part of a plea bargain (see Judgment of September 26, 2017, P/19(a)-(c)).  Naveh testified as a witness on behalf of the accuser.

Matrix -

Matrix, Defendant 16, was engaged, among other things, in the field of computer infrastructure.  The Matrix was charged with offenses, but one charge is the eleventh charge.

Defendant 15, Haim Shochat (Shohat), served during the relevant period as a salesman who was also defined as a customer portfolio manager at Matrix (P.  6697, paras.  1-13) and was responsible for the relationship with various customers, including the civil appeal (P/240, paras.  45-49, paras.  58-59).

38. In the first place, the indictment was directed against another company, Defendant 14, EMET Computing in a Tax Appeal (EMET), and against Defendants 11-13, who were officers of it. All of these ended in a plea bargain in which defendant 11, Yoav Weinberg, who served as CEO and active manager of EMET, was convicted of managerial liability offenses under section 48 of the Competition Law, while EMET, defendant 12, Ron Wischnitzer (Wischnitzer) and defendant 13, Yael Rubinstein (Rubinstein), who served as sales managers in the company, were convicted of offenses of a party to a restrictive arrangement (see judgment of July 12, 2017).
39. As part of the proceedings in the case, the defendants, or any of them, raised requests and arguments on various matters, as well as in connection with various investigative materials and documents, including from IAI. Along the way, various decisions were made on these matters (see, for example, paragraph 1091 below).
40. The hearing of the testimonies in the case lasted a little over two years. About 70 evidentiary hearings were held.  The minutes of the hearing are about 7,000 pages.  More than 1,000 exhibits were submitted (which were scanned by the accuser and submitted in a concentrated manner on magnetic media).  About 40 witnesses testified.  On behalf of the accuser, Shahar, Naveh and Rubinstein testified, inter alia, that they held positions in any of the defendant companies; They testified after they were convicted following plea bargains made with them; Various officials in the procurement bodies and on the technical side of the civil appeal also testified, as well as officials in Maman, the factory that at certain times coordinated the issue of computer procurement at IAI; Officials in the Mapi and Balop also testified that they were also allegedly coordinated; Officials at IBM and other companies that manufactured some of the hardware and software products that are the subject of the alleged coordination; investigators in the team that investigated the suspicions; And more.  As part of the defense affairs, the defendants Oshri, Zeiger and Shochat testified in their defense.  Nahum chose not to testify.  In addition, a number of defense witnesses were brought, mainly within the framework of the defense affair of the defendants Wei and Oshri.
41. All parties submitted comprehensive written summaries. Afterwards, a meeting was held to complete oral arguments.
42. On the basis of everything that was brought before the court, we will turn to the hearing.

General Note Regarding the Evidence and its Evaluation

Overview

43. During the trial, a broad body of evidence was laid out before the court. As mentioned above, this included evidence, documents, email correspondence, and other real-time correspondence; testimonies of officials in the commissioning entities, mainly IAI, inter alia regarding the competitive proceedings that are the subject of the indictment, testimonies of other entities operating in the field of hardware and software related to the charges; testimonies of those who were accused and convicted in plea bargains - Shahar, Naveh and Rubinstein; and the testimonies of the defendants Oshri, Zeiger and Shohat.
44. In the framework of the discussion of the specific charges and the concrete factual issues, we will be required to examine all the evidence and testimonies individually.

In general, we will note that in the framework of the analysis of the evidence, significant evidentiary weight should be given to documents and correspondence from real time and to the picture that emerges from them, which was often clear and unequivocal.  In addition, in general, preference should be given to the testimonies of witnesses who are third parties who have no interest, including representatives of the summoning parties, along with an examination of the arguments raised by the defendants in relation to these.