DOCSLIB.ORG

Israel: Phase 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Israel: Phase 2 DIRECTORATE FOR FINANCIAL AND ENTERPRISE AFFAIRS ISRAEL: PHASE 2 REPORT ON THE APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON COMBATING BRIBERY OF FOREIGN PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS AND THE 1997 RECOMMENDATION ON COMBATING BRIBERY IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS This report was approved and adopted by the Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions on 11 December 2009. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 4 A. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 5 1. The On-Site Visit .................................................................................................................................. 5 2. General Observations............................................................................................................................ 5 (a) Economic System ........................................................................................................................ 5 (b) Political and Legal Systems ......................................................................................................... 6 (c) Implementation of the Convention and the Revised Recommendation ...................................... 7 (d) Cases Involving the Bribery of Foreign Public Officials ............................................................ 7 3. Outline of the Report ............................................................................................................................ 9 B. PREVENTION, DETECTION AND AWARENESS OF FOREIGN BRIBERY ............................... 9 1. General Efforts to Raise Awareness ..................................................................................................... 9 (a) Government Initiatives to Raise Awareness ................................................................................ 9 (b) Private Sector Initiatives to Raise Awareness ........................................................................... 10 2. Reporting and Whistleblowing ........................................................................................................... 11 (a) Duty to Report Crimes ............................................................................................................... 11 (b) Whistleblowing and Whistleblower Protection ......................................................................... 13 3. Officially Supported Export Credits ................................................................................................... 15 (a) Awareness-Raising Efforts ........................................................................................................ 15 (b) Detection and Reporting of Foreign Bribery ............................................................................. 15 4. Official Development Assistance (ODA) ........................................................................................... 16 5. Defence Exports.................................................................................................................................. 16 (a) Awareness-Raising Efforts ........................................................................................................ 17 (b) Detection and Reporting of Foreign Bribery ............................................................................. 17 6. Foreign Diplomatic Representations .................................................................................................. 18 (a) Awareness-Raising Efforts ........................................................................................................ 18 (b) Detection and Reporting of Foreign Bribery ............................................................................. 18 7. Tax Authorities ................................................................................................................................... 19 (a) Non-Deductibility of Bribes ...................................................................................................... 19 (b) Awareness, Training and Detection ........................................................................................... 22 (c) Sharing of Information and Duty to Report Foreign Bribery .................................................... 23 8. Accounting and Auditing .................................................................................................................... 25 (a) Awareness and Training ............................................................................................................ 25 (b) Accounting and Auditing Standards .......................................................................................... 25 (c) Internal controls, supervisory boards and audit committees ..................................................... 27 (d) External Auditing ...................................................................................................................... 28 (e) Duty to Report Foreign Bribery ................................................................................................. 30 (f) Accounting and Auditing of the Public Sector .......................................................................... 30 9. Anti-Money Laundering ..................................................................................................................... 31 (a) Reporting Requirements ............................................................................................................ 32 (b) Typologies and Guidelines ........................................................................................................ 33 (c) Sanctions for Failure to Report .................................................................................................. 33 2 C. INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION AND SANCTIONING OF FOREIGN BRIBERY AND RELATED OFFENCES ................................................................................................................................ 34 1. Investigation and Prosecution of Foreign Bribery .............................................................................. 34 (a) Law Enforcement Authorities ................................................................................................... 34 (b) Prosecutors ................................................................................................................................ 35 (c) The Conduct of Investigations and Prosecutions ....................................................................... 36 (d) Investigative Techniques and Bank Secrecy ............................................................................. 39 (e) Mutual Legal Assistance and Extradition .................................................................................. 40 2. The Offence of Foreign Bribery ......................................................................................................... 43 (a) Elements of the Offence ............................................................................................................ 43 (b) Defences and Exemptions from Prosecution ............................................................................. 45 (c) Jurisdiction ................................................................................................................................ 47 (d) Limitation Periods and Delays in Proceedings .......................................................................... 52 3. Liability of Legal Persons ................................................................................................................... 53 (a) The legal basis for liability of legal persons in Israel ................................................................ 53 (b) Vagueness in the law and exercise of prosecutorial discretion ................................................. 57 (c) Uncertainty as to the number of prosecutions and convictions of legal persons for intentional criminal offences .................................................................................................................................... 58 4. The Offence of Money Laundering .................................................................................................... 60 (a) Scope of the Money Laundering Offence .................................................................................. 60 (b) Sanctions for Money Laundering .............................................................................................. 61 (c) Enforcement of the Money Laundering Offence ....................................................................... 61 5. The Offence of False Accounting ....................................................................................................... 61 (a) Offences against the Tax System ............................................................................................... 61 (b) Offences against the Securities Law .......................................................................................... 62 (c) Government Companies Law .................................................................................................... 62 6. Sanctions for Foreign Bribery ............................................................................................................ 63 (a) Criminal Sanctions
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Elections Disqualifications Caseselections Disqualifications Cases
    The Archive Law, the GSS Law and Elections Disqualifications CasesElections Disqualifications Cases Excerptsthe Public from Legal DiscourseArguments Submitted in by AdalahIsrael to the Central Elections Committee and the Supreme Court December 2002 – January 2003 Hillel Cohen Editors’ Note The following are excerpts from the reply briefs submitted by Adalah to the Central Elections Committee and to the Supreme Court of Israel in the 2003 elections disqualification cases. In these cases, Adalah represented MK Dr. Azmi Bishara and the National Democratic Assembly; MK ‘Abd al-Malek Dahamshe and the United Arab List; and MK Dr. Ahmad Tibi and the Democratic Front for Peace and Equality-Arab Movement for Renewal List against motions to disqualify them filed by the Attorney General and numerous right-wing MKs and political parties. Adalah argued in these cases that the May 2002 amendment to the Basic Law: The Knesset is unconstitutional, in particular, with regard to the provision that any individual candidate or political party list that “support(s) the armed struggle of an enemy state or of a terrorist organization against the State of Israel” may be disqualified from running in the elections for the Knesset. Legal Problems Inherent in Section 7A(a)(3) 1 The respondents will argue that the applicants’ position regarding the application of Section 7A(a)(3) of the Basic Law: The Knesset – which refers to “support(ing) the armed struggle of an enemy state or of a terror organization” – raises two serious legal problems. The first relates to the legal interpretation of this provision, and the second involves its retroactive application.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court of Israel on 15 April 2015
    Translation from the original Hebrew by Adalah Summary of decision issued by the Supreme Court of Israel on 15 April 2015 The Supreme Court of Israel HCJ 5239/11, HCJ 5392/11, HCJ 5549/11, HCJ 2072/121 Uri Avnery et al. v. Knesset et al. Concerning the constitutionality of the Law Preventing Harm to the State of Israel by Means of Boycott Summary of decision An expanded panel of nine Supreme Court justices handed down a decision today (15 April 2015) on the petitions that challenged the constitutionality of the Law Preventing Harm to the State of Israel by Means of Boycott – 2011 (hereinafter: the Boycott Law, or the law). The law, enacted by the Knesset on 11 July 2011, imposes tort liability on any person who knowingly issues a public call to impose a boycott on the State of Israel, that is: anyone who calls for “deliberately avoiding economic, cultural or academic ties with a person, or other entity, solely because of their affiliation with the State of Israel, one of its institutions, or an area under its control, in such a way that may cause economic, cultural or academic harm” (hereinafter: a call to impose a boycott on the State of Israel). The law also authorizes the minister of finance to institute regulations to restrict those calling for such boycott from participating in tenders for contracts with the state, and to deny them various benefits granted by the state. The petitioners sought to challenge the constitutionality of the law, arguing that it violates various constitutional rights (primarily: the freedom of political expression, the right to equality, and the right to freedom of occupation), and does not meet the conditions defined for this purpose in the “limitation clauses” in Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty and in Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation.
    [Show full text]
  • Absentee Property Law of 1950 Was Meant to Serve As the Legal Basis to Transfer the Property of Palestinian Refugees Into the Possession of the State of Israel
    Absentees against Their Will – Property Expropriation in East Jerusalem under the Absentee Property Law July 2010 Introduction The Absentee Property Law of 1950 was meant to serve as the legal basis to transfer the property of Palestinian refugees into the possession of the State of Israel. The law says that the land and property of Palestinian residents and nationals of Arab countries who, from November 29, 1947 until a declaration that the state of emergency declared in 1948 ended [which has not yet happened] were in one of the Arab countries, or "in any part of the Land of Israel that is outside of the area of Israel," would revert to the possession of the Custodian of Absentee Property, meaning, to the possession of the State.1 Following the annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967, and as a result the application of all of the laws of Israel -- including the Absentee Property Law -- to the annexed area, a problematic situation arose in which the property of almost all the Palestinian residents of the city became, in fact, absentee property, because those residents were at the time to which the law refers citizens of Jordan, then an enemy country, who resided in "a part of the Land of Israel that [was] outside of the area of Israel." To contend with this problematic situation, section 3 of the Law and Administration Ordinance 5730-1970 provides that the law does not apply to residents of East Jerusalem who "on the day of the incidence of the order of application of the law was in the area of its application and was a resident thereof."2 Therefore, only residents who were physically present in East Jerusalem on the day of annexation are not considered absentees.
    [Show full text]
  • The Occupation's Fig Leaf
    B’Tselem will no longer play a part in the pretense posed by the military law enforcement system and will no longer refer complaints to it. The Occupation's The experience we have gained, on which we Fig Leaf base the conclusions presented in this report, has brought us to the realization that there is Israel’s Military Law Enforcement no longer any point in pursuing justice and defending human rights by working with a System as a Whitewash Mechanism system whose real function is measured by its ability to continue to successfully cover up unlawful acts and protect perpetrators. The Occupation's Fig Leaf Israel’s Military Law Enforcement System as a Whitewash Mechanism May 2016 ISBN 978-965-7613-19-1 Cover: THOMAS COEX/AFP/Getty Images Einhar Design -1- -2- Table of Contents Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 The military law enforcement system: In theory ........................................................................................ 7 The military law enforcement system: In practice .................................................................................... 16 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................................... 36 Table : MAG Corps handling of incidents referred by B’Tselem - 2000-2015 ............................................. 40 Illustrative Cases The killing of Wadi’ Samarah
    [Show full text]
  • Project Democracy: Fighting for the Ground Rules
    Project Democracy: Fighting for the Ground Rules Chapter 4: Freedom of Speech, Dissent, and Political Activity Freedom of speech is a basic human right and an essential component of any democracy. It is this freedom that enables citizens to exchange views and information, to protest against injustice, to influence the public discourse, and to criticize the actions of the government. As such, freedom of speech represents a necessary condition for the informed and effective political participation of a country's citizenry. Restrictions on free speech cause harm to democratic life and stands in contradiction to the fundamental principles of democracy – that government should impose no more than the necessary minimum of restrictions on individuals, especially regarding their basic rights. The safeguarding of free speech is especially critical for defending the rights of minority groups. Minorities often suffer from limited political influence and limited access to the corridors of power, and so the arena of public expression is where they are best able to give voice to their positions, to protest, and to influence public opinion. In numerous and unrelenting rulings and legal decisions, Israel's Supreme Court has defended freedom of speech, calling it “the lifeline of democracy.” In these principled rulings, time after time the justices have affirmed that the true test of freedom of speech is not the defense of commonly accepted statements – which no one seeks to limit anyway – but of statements considered irritating, extreme, and unexceptional. Over the last two years, we have witnessed increasing threats in Israel to freedom of speech and those freedoms which derive from it: The right to demonstrate, freedom of the press, academic freedom and freedom of political activity.
    [Show full text]
  • Trends in Legal Formalism and the Judicial Role: Jurisprudence Meets Empirical Legal Studies
    RESEARCH WORKSHOP OF THE ISRAEL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Trends in legal formalism and the judicial role: Faculty of Law Jurisprudence meets empirical legal studies 18-20 December, 2016 Sunday, December 18th - Faculty Lounge 09:00-10:30 First Session: Opening Comments and Conceptual Debates About Formalism Chair: Prof. Michal Alberstein, Bar-Ilan University Dr. Limor Gabai-Egozi and Prof. Bryna Bogoch, Bar-Ilan University, Formalisms of Law: The Fluctuating Paths of Legal Rhetoric Prof. Lawrence Solan, Brooklyn Law School, Rhetoric in the US Supreme Court: From Formalism to Pragmatism Prof. Dennis Kurzon, Haifa University, Sir Thomas More as a Legal Formalist Prof. Barak Medina, Hebrew University, Rules vs. Standards in Constitutional Adjudication Coffee break 11:00-12:30 Second Session: Socio-legal and Historical Aspects of Legal Formalism Chair: Dr. Ori Aronson, Bar-Ilan University Prof. Menny Mautner, Tel-Aviv University, The Decline of Formalism and the Rise of Values in Israeli Legal Culture 1980-1993-2016 Prof. Brian Tamanaha, Washington University, The Inevitability of Formalism and Realism Prof. Nir Kedar, Sapir Academic College/Bar-Ilan University, A Broader Historical Look at Legal Formalism Lunch break 14:00-15:30 Third Session: Formalism in Jewish Law Chair: Prof. Tsilly Dagan, Bar-Ilan University Prof. Yair Lorberbaum, Bar-Ilan University, Halakhah, Kabbalah and Legal Formalism Prof. Haim Shapira, Bar-Ilan University, Judicial Arbitration as an Anti- Formalistic Mechanism in the Jewish Judging System Prof. Suzanne Stone, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law/Yeshiva University, Formalism and Aesthetics: From Blackstone to Brisk Prof Adiel Schremer, Bar Ilan University, The Textualist Shift and the Rise of Formalism in Early Rabbinic Legal Thought RESEARCH WORKSHOP OF THE ISRAEL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Trends in legal formalism and the judicial role: Jurisprudence meets empirical legal studies 16:00-17:30 Fourth Session: Reconstructions of Legal Formalism Chair: Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice Elyakim Rubinstein Deputy President of the Supreme Court Curriculum Vitae
    בית המשפט העליון THE SUPREME COURT OF ISRAEL Justice Elyakim Rubinstein Deputy President of the Supreme Court Curriculum Vitae 2015 Appointed Deputy President of the Supreme Court. 2012-2013 Served as Chairman of the Central Elections Committee. 2004 Appointed Justice of the Supreme Court of Israel. 1997-2003 Served as the Attorney General of Israel. In this position, he participated in negotiations with Syria (in 1999-2000) and in the Camp David Summit with the Palestinians in 2000, and as the head of the Israeli delegation to conferences on the subjects of Intolerance and Anti-Semitism (2001-2003). 1995-1997 Served as Judge at the Jerusalem District Court. 1994-1995 Served as Legal Counsel to the Ministry of Defense and Assistant to the Prime Minister, and simultaneously as chair of the Committee supervising negotiations on Agreements for implementation of the Peace Treaty with Jordan. 1986-1994 Served as Government Secretary for four different governments. As part of that position, he headed the legal team working with U.S. Government and Congress officials concerning the investigation into the Iran-Contras affair; he headed negotiation teams on the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the United States and the Government of Israel on Strategic Cooperation, and negotiations on various legal issues in the field of defense. He was the head of the Israeli delegation that negotiated with the Jordanian- Palestinian delegation in Madrid and Washington, and head of the Israeli delegation for negotiations on the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty. He served as the first chairman of the Israel Anti-Drug Authority, and as the first chairman of the Government Forum to Monitor Anti-Semitism.
    [Show full text]
  • Inventing Judicial Review: Israel and America
    INAUGUARL URI AND CAROLINE BAUER MEMORIAL LECTURE INVENTING JUDICIAL REVIEW: ISRAEL AND AMERICA Robert A. Burt* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE FIRST GENERATION: TOWARD AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY .............................................. 2017 A. The Impact of the 1967 War on Israeli Jurisprudence .................................................... 2027 1. Jurisdiction over the Occupied Territories ....... 2029 2. The Knesset Acts ............................... 2034 B. The Court's Initial Response ......................... 2036 1. Shalit v. Minister of the Interior ................. 2036 2. Bergman v. Minister of Finance .................. 2043 3. Bergman and Marbury .......................... 2047 4. Jurisdiction over the Territories and Marbury .... 2049 II. THE SECOND GENERATION: THE AMERICAN WAY ...... 2051 A. The Definitive Emergence of Judicial Review in A m erica ............................................ 2051 B. The Israeli Supreme Court Charts Its Path ........... 2066 1. Israel's Dred Scott ............................... 2067 2. Judicial Injunctions to Tolerate the Intolerant ... 2077 3. The Promise and Problems of Judicial Independence ................................... 2084 C. The Convergence of Israeli and American Doctrine ... 2091 * Southmayd Professor of Law, Yale University. This Article is an expanded version of the Inaugural Uri and Caroline Bauer Memorial Lecture delivered at the Benjamin N. Car- dozo School of Law of Yeshiva University on October 11, 1988. I am especially indebted to Justice Aharon Barak, Professor Kenneth Mann of the Tel Aviv University Faculty of Law, and Dean Stephen Goldstein of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law. Although none of them is responsible for the substance of this Article, without their generous assistance it would not have been written. I am also particularly grateful to two Yale Law School students, Stephen Sowle who helped me with the American historical sources and Joel Prager who gave me access to material only available in Hebrew.
    [Show full text]
  • Suicide Terrorists in the Current Conflict
    Israeli Security Agency [logo] Suicide Terrorists in the Current Conflict September 2000 - September 2007 L_C089061 Table of Contents: Foreword...........................................................................................................................1 Suicide Terrorists - Personal Characteristics................................................................2 Suicide Terrorists Over 7 Years of Conflict - Geographical Data...............................3 Suicide Attacks since the Beginning of the Conflict.....................................................5 L_C089062 Israeli Security Agency [logo] Suicide Terrorists in the Current Conflict Foreword Since September 2000, the State of Israel has been in a violent and ongoing conflict with the Palestinians, in which the Palestinian side, including its various organizations, has carried out attacks against Israeli citizens and residents. During this period, over 27,000 attacks against Israeli citizens and residents have been recorded, and over 1000 Israeli citizens and residents have lost their lives in these attacks. Out of these, 155 (May 2007) attacks were suicide bombings, carried out against Israeli targets by 178 (August 2007) suicide terrorists (male and female). (It should be noted that from 1993 up to the beginning of the conflict in September 2000, 38 suicide bombings were carried out by 43 suicide terrorists). Despite the fact that suicide bombings constitute 0.6% of all attacks carried out against Israel since the beginning of the conflict, the number of fatalities in these attacks is around half of the total number of fatalities, making suicide bombings the most deadly attacks. From the beginning of the conflict up to August 2007, there have been 549 fatalities and 3717 casualties as a result of 155 suicide bombings. Over the years, suicide bombing terrorism has become the Palestinians’ leading weapon, while initially bearing an ideological nature in claiming legitimate opposition to the occupation.
    [Show full text]
  • Excluded, for God's Sake: Gender Segregation and the Exclusion of Women in Public Space in Israel
    Excluded, For God’s Sake: Gender Segregation and the Exclusion of Women in Public Space in Israel המרכז הרפורמי לדת ומדינה -לוגו ללא מספר. Third Annual Report – December 2013 Israel Religious Action Center Israel Movement for Reform and Progressive Judaism Excluded, For God’s Sake: Gender Segregation and the Exclusion of Women in Public Space in Israel Third Annual Report – December 2013 Written by: Attorney Ruth Carmi, Attorney Ricky Shapira-Rosenberg Consultation: Attorney Einat Hurwitz, Attorney Orly Erez-Lahovsky English translation: Shaul Vardi Cover photo: Tomer Appelbaum, Haaretz, September 29, 2010 – © Haaretz Newspaper Ltd. © 2014 Israel Religious Action Center, Israel Movement for Reform and Progressive Judaism Israel Religious Action Center 13 King David St., P.O.B. 31936, Jerusalem 91319 Telephone: 02-6203323 | Fax: 03-6256260 www.irac.org | [email protected] Acknowledgement In loving memory of Dick England z"l, Sherry Levy-Reiner z"l, and Carole Chaiken z"l. May their memories be blessed. With special thanks to Loni Rush for her contribution to this report IRAC's work against gender segregation and the exclusion of women is made possible by the support of the following people and organizations: Kathryn Ames Foundation Claudia Bach Philip and Muriel Berman Foundation Bildstein Memorial Fund Jacob and Hilda Blaustein Foundation Inc. Donald and Carole Chaiken Foundation Isabel Dunst Naomi and Nehemiah Cohen Foundation Eugene J. Eder Charitable Foundation John and Noeleen Cohen Richard and Lois England Family Jay and Shoshana Dweck Foundation Foundation Lewis Eigen and Ramona Arnett Edith Everett Finchley Reform Synagogue, London Jim and Sue Klau Gold Family Foundation FJC- A Foundation of Philanthropic Funds Vicki and John Goldwyn Mark and Peachy Levy Robert Goodman & Jayne Lipman Joseph and Harvey Meyerhoff Family Richard and Lois Gunther Family Foundation Charitable Funds Richard and Barbara Harrison Yocheved Mintz (Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Israel and the Middle East News Update
    Israel and the Middle East News Update Wednesday, February 18 Headlines: CNN Poll: Majority of Americans Oppose Netanyahu Invite Ross: Netanyahu Should Admit Decision to Address Congress was a Mistake Haredi Parties Indicate Endorsement for Netanyahu Netanyahu's Electability Suffers Blow After Damning Report Rivals Bash Netanyahu Over Spending Israeli Defense Minister at India Airshow to Boost Arms Sales Khamenei Threatens World Gas Supply, Vows Firm Nuclear Stand Sisi Calls for U.N.-Backed Coalition to Intervene in Libya Commentary: Ha’aretz: “Netanyahu Forgot He’s Supposed to Serve His Voters, Not Abuse Their Trust” Editorial Ma’ariv: “Bibi’s Speech to Congress Could Tip the Electoral Scale” By Ben Caspit S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace 633 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20004 www.centerpeace.org ● Yoni Komorov, Editor ● Nathaniel Sobel, Associate Editor News Excerpts February 18, 2015 CNN CNN Poll: Majority of Americans Oppose Netanyahu Invite A large majority of Americans believe that Republican congressional leaders should not have invited Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress without consulting the White House, according to a new CNN/ORC survey. The nationwide poll, released Tuesday, shows 63% of Americans say it was a bad move for congressional leadership to extend the invitation without giving President Barack Obama a heads up that it was coming. Only 33% say it was the right thing to do. Ha’aretz Ross: PM Should Admit Decision to address Congress a mistake “We will all rue that day,” if Israel becomes a partisan issue in the United States, former U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • SA FUNDS INVESTMENT TRUST Form N-Q Filed 2016-11-23
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION FORM N-Q Quarterly schedule of portfolio holdings of registered management investment company filed on Form N-Q Filing Date: 2016-11-23 | Period of Report: 2016-09-30 SEC Accession No. 0001206774-16-007593 (HTML Version on secdatabase.com) FILER SA FUNDS INVESTMENT TRUST Mailing Address Business Address 10 ALMADEN BLVD, 15TH 10 ALMADEN BLVD, 15TH CIK:1075065| IRS No.: 770216379 | State of Incorp.:DE | Fiscal Year End: 0630 FLOOR FLOOR Type: N-Q | Act: 40 | File No.: 811-09195 | Film No.: 162016544 SAN JOSE CA 95113 SAN JOSE CA 95113 (800) 366-7266 Copyright © 2016 www.secdatabase.com. All Rights Reserved. Please Consider the Environment Before Printing This Document UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM N-Q QUARTERLY SCHEDULE OF PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS OF REGISTERED MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT COMPANY Investment Company Act file number: 811-09195 SA FUNDS - INVESTMENT TRUST (Exact name of registrant as specified in charter) 10 Almaden Blvd., 15th Floor, San Jose, CA 95113 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) Deborah Djeu Chief Compliance Officer SA Funds - Investment Trust 10 Almaden Blvd., 15th Floor, San Jose, CA 95113 (Name and Address of Agent for Service) Copies to: Brian F. Link Mark D. Perlow, Esq. Vice President and Managing Counsel Counsel to the Trust State Street Bank and Trust Company Dechert LLP 100 Summer Street One Bush Street, Suite 1600 7th Floor, Mailstop SUM 0703 San Francisco, CA 94104-4446 Boston, MA 02111 Registrants telephone number, including area code: (800) 366-7266 Date of fiscal year end: June 30 Date of reporting period: September 30, 2016 Copyright © 2013 www.secdatabase.com.
    [Show full text]