An indictment was filed against 17 defendants accused of committing the offenses of a restrictive arrangement, receiving something by fraud, and money laundering, even though 50 were originally involved in the case. The prosecution decided who to prosecute based on parameters reflecting the severity of the acts.
The court ruled that the criteria by which the investigation was conducted do not amount to selective enforcement. An indictment may be quashed if its filing or the conduct of the criminal proceedings are in substantial conflict with the principles of justice and fairness. One of the “defenses from justice” is selective enforcement, which means investigating or prosecuting a defendant while discriminating against him without just cause, such as prosecuting only some of those involved in a particular incident. Nevertheless, for substantive considerations, the prosecution may be content with prosecuting only some of those involved, taking into account parameters such as the severity of the offenses, the public interest, etc. Here, although not all of those involved were prosecuted, prosecuting 50 involved would have burdened the legal system, prolonged the duration of the trial, and diminished the public interest in its existence. The parameters on the basis of which it was decided who to prosecute are clear and measurable, and reflect the severity of the acts. Therefore, prosecuting only 17 defendants does not amount to selective enforcement.
