With regard to the testimony of Meir Ephraim, on which the prosecution is based, defendant 1 argues that this is a witness involved with a clear interest in removing the responsibility from his shoulders and imposing it on him, due to a dispute that arose between them. It was further argued that Meir Ephraim was a fraudster whose credibility was zero and that his testimony should be given little evidentiary weight.
As to the claim that the signatures and seals stamped on the documents were forged, it was argued by defendant 1 that the testimony of the legal advisor of the Arab Bank should not be relied upon, since this testimony is insufficient to prove the forgery. For this purpose, the prosecution should have brought an expert witness for stamps and signatures, which it did not do. Additional evidence on which the prosecution relies, such as the testimony of Alon Granot and the recording of the conversation between defendants 2 and 3, does not prove that these were indeed forged signatures and stamps. With regard to the claim that shell companies were used, defendant 1 argued that it was not proven that these were indeed shell companies, and in any event, the defendant's control of these companies was not proven. As for ICT and JCC companies, the defendant has nothing to do with their establishment or operation. Sevilla, which is registered in the name of Haim Zarrouk and Shlomo Shoval, is an active company that has executed real, legitimate and legal transactions. The defendant claims that the prosecution refrained from bringing Haim Zarrouk to testify, without providing any explanation for this evidentiary failure, and therefore the presumption arises that the same Haim Zarrouk denies any acquaintance with Defendant 1, and any connection of this defendant to him or to the Sevilla company.
The testimony of Attorney Jacky Bublil indicates that he opened the company and registered it at the request of Avi Ben Nissan and Kobi Zoaretz (the latter appears on the list of prosecution witnesses in the indictment). As part of the prosecution's case, the two did not testify, without the prosecution making any real attempt to locate them and summon them to testify. As part of the defense affair of Defendant 4, Avi Kalmaro, this defendant surprised this defendant by doing the "unbelievable" and locating the two. Their testimony turned out to be very positive from the point of view of Defendant 1, and proved, once again, that their entire purpose was to incriminate him, so that he would bear responsibility for their own actions.