Let us now turn to the coordination correspondence at Baltimore.
- On January 31, 2010, Gilad Maharel sent an email to Shahar Moy and Naveh of Triple C in which he wrote: "Here are prices and config for Baltimore. Please do not write down other numbers: I am submitting about 501,000 for NetApp there are no more prices" (P/18). Attached to the email was a table in an Excel file detailing the project's contents along with prices, divided into separate columns, columns intended for the prices of Wii and columns for the prices of Triple C, in relation to each item in the contents, with the total price for the mentioned Levi being $515,255 and for Triple C being $524,755 (ibid.). In other words, the prices mentioned for Levi and Triple C were higher than the price that Gilad mentioned as the price he would submit in Harel's offer.
- On the same day, January 31, 2010, a short time later, Naveh sent Knitwerk an email with Triple C's proposal for the Baltimore project in the total amount of $524,755 (P/20, Naveh's testimony, p. 108, paras. 13-14). In other words, Naveh submitted Triple C's bid for an amount exactly matching the price he received from Gilad.
It seems that Triple C's offer is exactly in line with what Gilad initially sent both in terms of the prices of the various equipment items, the overall price, and the configuration and contents of the equipment (and in fact, Naveh's comment that at this stage the prices for the storage component are missing is also consistent with Gilad's email). Naveh's testimony on this matter gave an innocent and evasive impression, and contradictions were discovered between it and what he said during his interrogation. In his testimony he claimed that the offer he submitted on behalf of Triple C (P/20) was different in configuration from what Gilad had sent him, and that it was a completely different offer, even though the price of the offer was exactly the same as the price he received from Gilad (p. 109, paras. 1-9). Naveh did not really clarify the claim of configuration differences. His testimony aroused perplexity (and it seems that the defendants also did not have an explanation for the matter, for example, paragraph 319 of Harel's summaries). His testimony even stood in clear contradiction to what he said in his interrogation, where he claimed the opposite, that he adhered to the configuration sent by Gilad, but certainly did not adhere to the price (P/2, paras. 484-486). These things are difficult and should not be trusted.