On September 1, 2025, the Supreme Court (Justice Kabub) delivered its ruling in the appeal filed by Ayelet Youngster, Head of the Poland department at “World Bridge Tours LDS”, against her sentence in the “Holocaust memorial trips cartel” case. The case concerned coordination among travel agents in tenders for flying delegations to Poland. Ms. Youngster was sentenced by the Jerusalem District Court to five months of active prison term for participating in restrictive arrangements with aggravating circumstances. In her appeal, Ms. Youngster argued that due to her personal circumstances and given that no woman has ever served actual prison time for antitrust offenses, the prison sentence should be converted to community service. She also claimed that, unlike men, all female inmates in Israel are held in a single prison without distinction based on their level of risk.
The Supreme Court ruled that in cartel offenses, “the lower bound of the appropriate sentencing range should generally reflect a prison term that cannot be served through community service… meaning, more than nine months of actual imprisonment.” According to the Court, this range reflects both the characteristics of the offense – a serious criminal act that harms fundamental economic and social values, and the characteristics of the offender – typically law-abiding individuals, often not young (with all that implies regarding their health status). In this case, the Supreme Court held that a 5-month prison sentence was lenient toward the appellant.
This ruling marks a significant milestone in a long process, marked by ups and downs from the Israeli Competition Authority’s perspective, during which sentencing for cartel offenses has gradually and significantly escalated. The Supreme Court stated that its determinations are “not a novelty.” We respectfully disagree.
Indeed, more than two decades have passed since the Israeli Competition Authority broke the “psychological barrier” and succeeded in securing actual prison sentences for cartel offenses in the “Tile Cartel” case. At that time, the principle was established that the appropriate punishment for cartel offenses is imprisonment. However, the Authority struggled to implement this strict judicial rhetoric into lengthy prison sentences in specific cases. The pinnacle was the “Bread Cartel” case (2017), in which the Supreme Court reduced the actual imprisonment term from 12 months to merely 3 months. Since that ruling, a sentence exceeding the current lower bound of 9 months has been imposed only once
The Supreme Court now defines a sentencing range whose lower bound generally exceeds the maximum sentences previously imposed for cartel offenses. The ruling also narrows judicial discretion to deviate from the sentencing scale due to personal circumstances of the offender.
An internal compliance program in the field of competition law, prepared by competition law experts, is the most effective tool for addressing the serious risk posed by corporate involvement in violations of the Economic Competition Law. If properly designed and implemented, such a program helps reduce the likelihood of offenses within the corporation. It may also protect company officers in cases where unlawful actions were taken without their knowledge and contrary to their directives.
The above content is a summary provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It should not be relied upon without obtaining further professional legal counsel.
