In addition, the court could have been impressed by the burdensome criminal record of the two, who confirmed, although they were behind the establishment of the Sevilla company, but falsely claimed that they had not carried out any activity in this company and sold it to defendant 1 for a considerable sum of money.
According to the defendant, this is ridiculous testimony, since when Zoaretz was interrogated by the police and customs authorities, he categorically denied that he knew the defendant, Uri Resch, so it was a suppressed version.
Moreover, all the persons involved denied any connection to their acquaintance with Uri Resh and did not mention any incident of sale of the Sevilla company or any other company to this defendant.
At the end of the day, as claimed in the summaries of defendant 1, the testimony of Zoaretz and Ben Nissan strengthens the conclusion that they stand behind the Savilla company and behind its operation and management.
The person who knew the two and Defendant 1 was Defendant 4, Avi Kalamaro, whom he presented as businessmen interested in carrying out financial transactions through companies under their management, such as Sevilla. The defendant provided services to the Savilla company and tried to integrate it as a marketing company in various transactions of his customers, and in this framework he even received the seal of the Sevilla company, which was necessary for the execution of ongoing operations, such as the transfer of checks and the like.
In addition, defendant 1 agreed to provide collection services and to coordinate the calculation of the company's accounts, and even assisted in the transfer of documents and the receipt of material from the company's bookkeeper, Pini Basson.
Moreover, defendant 1 had no connection to the Savilla company and he did not make decisions on behalf of the company, nor was he authorized to do so.
Formally, Svilla is not under the control of defendant 1, he is not registered as a shareholder in the company or even as a director and did not hold any other position in this company, so there is no basis for the prosecution's claim that Svilla was under the defendant's functional control.