On the aforementioned side, the pricing reflected in the invoice also shows that this is a fiction, with a price of only NIS 200 for each of the 773 transports mentioned, while the prices that were usually quoted ranged around NIS 2000.
- P/5 is an invoice dated August 28, 2017 in the sum of NIS 81,900 that was allegedly spent for the installation of a fence in an excavation area in Sheh Modi'in (Azorim Project).
Here, too, no documentation was presented indicating that the defendants were involved in such a project, that a fence was erected, etc.
- P/6 is an invoice dated August 28, 2017 in the sum of NIS 280,800 that was allegedly incurred for construction work in the Bat Hefer squares.
Here, too, no evidence was presented that there was a construction project in the Bat Hefer roundabouts in which the defendants were involved and any work carried out there by the defendants, an agreement to carry out works with Peleg Chai, etc.
- P/7 is an invoice dated 30.10.17 in the sum of NIS 644,436, which was allegedly incurred for 23 transports of a Holon Tira Fulltrailer, 9 11 Holon double trucks, preparation of pile heads + casting of Holon pile heads according to the Fauchli summary (this work alone costs NIS 245,000), quarrying and casting pile heads according to a summary in Ra'anana (this work alone is worth NIS 130,000), 19 Herzliya waste disposal, 66 yards of Herzliya truck.
No evidence was presented of significant projects in Holon or Ra'anana in significant sums and of the involvement of the defendants in these projects or of Peleg Chai's involvement in these projects.
- P/8 is an invoice dated 30.11.17 in the sum of NIS 41,418 for 59 full-trailer transports in the month of 11/17 Criminal appeal T.M.
Here, too, no evidence was presented for the aforementioned transports.
- Documents documenting the company's involvement in the projects and the work done are an integral part of the accounting of any licensed dealer or company operating in the field.
- Defendant 1 said in his testimony in the main interrogation[368] that "every project has delivery notes that are provided within the project that the employees sign, the employees transfer the bills, delivery notes to the clerk in the office, the clerk goes over them, confirms that the signature is approved, and after that they call him, come sit on the bill, approve it"... "To Nadir and to be my brother, they both come, or my brother-in-law saw how much it is not what he does, each one takes, as if he comes to sign for him that it is approved, it goes to the accountant, the accountant takes out the check and puts it in to me, I issue him a check"..."I have the clerk, the bookkeeper, the accountant, and the accountant like"... "They come and sit on the bills, approve the bills they sign for me, they transfer it to an accountant, they say to me, 'Daoud came out to us, let's say 30 checks, 50 checks, the supplier gives him the checks, I have the checks in my safe, he gives them to him according to the agreements of the approved accounts, he takes out the checks, puts them in to me, signs them and distributes them.'"
- Notwithstanding the aforesaid, none of the entities named by Defendant 1 as involved in the management of the accounts – the clerk named in her name – Aisha and the accountant Muhammad Hasakia, who according to Defendant 1 were in the position at the time and still serve in it today [369] – was not brought to testify and no document was presented, although there was apparently no difficulty in their time, the "workers" in the field who approved the invitations were not summoned. You were the brother or the brother-in-law and no certificate or account was presented.
- It is reasonable to assume that if Plotzer or Peleg Chai or any other person received large sums of money in cash, he would give a receipt in return, but no such was presented. I do not accept as a reasonable possibility that defendant 3 deducted checks for the person "Peleg Chai" in huge sums of money totaling more than NIS 1 million in cash and did not receive a receipt for the payment. The refusal to present a receipt, since I got the impression that there is none, since it is only a fiction and a false claim, will be attributed to the defendants' obligation.
- In the cross-examination of the witness Flutzer, the defense raised the argument that defendant 1 did not act with the witness and that there were people on his behalf who worked with Flutzer on the subject of the engagement, the issue of the checks, the issue of everything[370]. Of course, a person who makes such a claim is expected to name those people and bring them to testify. The defense's refusal to do so will act in its obligation.
- No identifying detail or evidence was presented in relation to the "contractor" who "carried out the works" which, in my impression, was invented by the defendants.
- In this context, it was[371] held:
"Regarding the defense's refusal to bring evidence in its defense, and in particular evidence that stands at the heart of the defense's thesis, and the significance that should be attributed to it, this court noted in one of the cases: