Prosecution Summaries as an Introduction to Charges 3-7
- In the preamble to Charges 3-7, it was argued that this was a single set of systematic and repeated uses, by fraudulent methods from the school of Defendant 1. The characteristics used in the commission of fraudulent acts in all of the aforementioned cases are the forgery of a transfer stamp by a bank in the Palestinian Authority territories on copies of the bills of lading, the same forged stamp of transfer, the same straw companies, the same false suppliers in whose name fake supplier accounts were issued, who replaced the real accounts with the customs clearance records, and those accomplices in the offense. In all cases, the goods were fraudulently ordered in the name of a fictitious Palestinian customer, with the agreement with the supplier from abroad that the release documents would be sent to the Arab Bank in the Palestinian Authority, and redeemed from the bank by paying the price of the goods in cash. The Bond Documents Method is an old and accepted method of payment in the trade between-Leumi, according to which the release documents of the exported goods are sent to the bank in the importer's country, and the importer redeems them from the bank by paying the price of the goods. The bank returns the documents to the importer's order as a check is made – by stamping the bearer stamp – and transfers the money to the exporter. The prosecution claims that in all cases, the goods were sent to Israel and released from the shipping company's agent, by means of a photocopy of the bill of lading bearing a forged stamp, which pretends to be the property of the Arab Bank operating in the territories of the Palestinian Authority. The goods were released from customs using shell companies, which were registered by CPA Natan Harpaz at the request of defendants 1 and 2, and they are the only ones who used these companies. The prosecution further claims that in all of the affairs, which are the subject of charges 3-7, the goods were fraudulently ordered in the name of companies in the Palestinian Authority. Palestinian Resources Limited (hereinafter PRL) in Charge 6 and ICC on the other charges. The indictment alleges that in indictment 3, Uri Resch ordered the goods, impersonating the supplier in the name of a notebook wall ICC, and in charges 4-7, defendant 3, Araldo Frizzi, ordered the goods as an agent or representative of those companies. The presentation of the client as a member of the Palestinian Authority was false, as these are misrepresentations, since these entities are fabricated and do not exist. The lawsuit argues that it does not need to prove that these are non-existent corporations, since the goods ordered were released through forged documents. Despite this, it was proven in the testimony of the legal advisor of the Arab Bank that the ICC does not exist, and there is no indication of the existence of the aforementioned companies, other than the documents intended for the execution of the orders. About the company PRL No direct evidence was presented, but the misrepresentation was proved by virtue of the fact that the telephone numbers of a person named Ephraim Meir appear in a document posing as a letter from the Palestinian client, and there is no doubt that this was a forged letter made by defendants 1 and 3, who alone were in contact with Ephraim Meir. Like-Yes, the prosecution relies on the recording of the conversation between defendants 2 and 3, in which Yehoshua Shlosh talks about the great ease with which the fraud was committed, and how it is possible to bring the testimony of a resident of the municipality who will give false testimony for a fee. What the defendants received fraudulently as a result of the aforementioned misrepresentation is "The satisfaction of the suppliers and their willingness to send the goods to Israel for those fictitious entities, ICC and PRL, believing that these companies exist and that they will redeem the documents from the Arab Bank."
The prosecution's arguments regarding the third charge
- The prosecution admits that it did not succeed in getting its hands on the order documents relating to this charge, so there is no direct evidence regarding the identity of the person who called the supplier of the goods and placed the order. However, the prosecution presented, according to it, a tapestry of circumstantial evidence indicating that it was Defendant 1 who made the order himself, posing as a reporter from a company ICC From the Palestinian Authority. According to the supplier's account, the goods were ordered for a company ICC, which has been proven to be a fictitious entity. Despite Defendant 1's denial, the conclusion is that he himself ordered the goods and released them fraudulently, and not any other party from the Palestinian Authority. In his letter to the forwarder Orian, the supplier mentions the phone and fax numbers of the ordering party, on the wall of a notebook ICCAnd lo and behold, this is a wonder: these are three telephone numbers that belong to Defendant 1. The prosecution wonders how the mobile phone number of defendant 1 reached the supplier and was presented as Bekir's number. Moreover, a copy of the release documents was sent to a notebook wall ICC to the fax placed in the office of defendant 1. The prosecution argues that the defendant received the bill of lading by fax, forged a transfer stamp on the bill of lading and delivered it through Yehoshua Shlosh to the customs broker Shlomo Arsban. Another piece of evidence, on which the prosecution relied, is the recording of Kumar Marsko's telephone and fax numbers in the diary of Defendant 1. The fact that the same Kumar is a salesman of the supplier Rasco is proof from a business index printout that was submitted without objection and marked P/462, and thus shows that the orderer of the goods was defendant 1, and no one else.
Preliminary Arguments for Charges 3-7 on behalf of Defendant 1
- Defendant 1 denies the prosecution's allegations that he conspired with Yehoshua Chelouche and Defendant 3 to supply goods, using the document collection method, for companies pretending to be Palestinian Authority territories, with the aim of stealing the goods without paying for them. In addition, all allegations regarding forgery of documents and submission of false documents to the customs authorities in Israel, with the intention of defrauding, are denied. In addition, defendant 1 denies that he had an intention to evade paying taxes and that he forged the relevant sales accounts. Defendant 1 denies that he was the one who ordered the goods from the suppliers, or that he was involved in ordering the goods, or that he had an interest in ordering the goods. With regard to Charge 3, as far as Defendant 1 is aware – without personal knowledge – the goods were ordered by a merchant of Arab origin named Karim Bekir who operated through a company called Mand Electric. The goods were ordered for a Palestinian Authority customer named ICC. Defendant 1 claims that the prosecution witness Shlomo Metuk confirmed in his testimony the existence of Bekir and stated that he knew of Bekir's involvement in ordering the goods. Like-He also confirmed that Bekir used to visit offices in Moshav Rishpon and carry out his business from there. It was further argued that the prosecution did not bring the supplier of the goods to testify and did not provide a real explanation for this omission, and therefore the court must proceed from the assumption that the supplier would have confirmed the fact that the person who ordered the goods and was in contact with him was on the wall. With regard to charges 4 - 7, as far as defendant 1 knows, the goods were ordered by Araldo Friese, through a company called Forum Office. The goods were ordered for customers from the Palestinian Authority on behalf of ICC andPRL, who preferred to carry out the imports through Israel, in order to facilitate the procedures. Defendant 3, Araldo Frisi, changed his mind in court and claimed for the first time that it was not Palestinian customers who were behind the order of the goods, but Defendant 1, and that the Arab customers were in contact with Defendant 1 and not with him. According to Defendant 1, this is a false version and the entire purpose of Defendant 3 is to place the entire responsibility on him.
As for the claim that the ICC and PRL companies are fictitious companies, the prosecution did not bring any real evidence in this regard, such as certificates from the Palestinian Registrar of Companies. To the claim regarding the taking of the goods by means of the use of stamps, signatures and forged documents, defendant 1 responds that he had nothing to do with the handling of the process of shipping the goods or the handling of the procedural and physical release proceedings. With regard to indictment 3, defendant 1 does not deny that he referred the clients of defendant Araldo Parisi to Yehoshua Shlosh in order to receive the services of releasing the goods. With regard to Karim Bekir, Defendant 1 claims that he used his office in Rishpon for the purpose of carrying out office activities, since he did not have his own office, and that he made telephone calls and exchanged faxes with his suppliers, without the defendant having any contact with those suppliers. Another involvement of the defendant was that he helped Bikir sell the merchandise through Shlomo Matuk, who, according to the defendant, was an expert in marketing in the relevant field. Subsequently, Defendant 1 mediated between Bakir and the Sevilla Company, with which he has financial business, in order for it to provide financing services through the sale of the goods, and in return generate a monetary commission. Another involvement relates to the connection with the Orian shipping company, through Elhanan Tenenbaum. Defendant 1 provided all of the aforementioned services to the wall merchant, convinced that the goods had been ordered, imported and released in accordance with the law.