Caselaw

Criminal Case (Tel Aviv) 40013/05 State of Israel v. Uri Resch - part 105

September 13, 2011
Print

The main argument is that this recording is inadmissible, and even if it does, it has zero weight.  In any case, Chelouche does not mention the Sevilla company in his conversation with Parisi, nor does he explicitly mention the names  of the companies JCC and ICT, and therefore it is not clear at all that he is referring to these companies.

In light of all of the above, it was argued in the summaries of defendant 1, the prosecution failed to prove the defendant's control of JCC, ICT and Sevilla, and certainly not at the level of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt.

In addition, the prosecution did not prove that these were shell companies and that this was known to defendant 1.

In addition, the prosecution did not bring the supplier, Rasko, to testify, and in light of his absence, there is no evidence that he did not receive his money.

The claim is based, in this regard, on hearsay testimonies, both second- and third-hand, and therefore they are inadmissible.  The prosecution's statement that the fact that the goods were not paid for is not in dispute has no basis, since the defense never expressed its consent on this issue.

As far as Charges 4-7 are concerned, the defendant does not deny that, prior to these transactions, Araldo Parisi approached him and told him about ordering the goods for his Palestinian customers, and asked him to assist him in coordinating a ship for shipment.

In addition, the defendant does not deny that he referred Araldo Parisi to Yehoshua Shlosh, since the latter is an expert in the release of goods for customers from the Palestinian Authority and also speaks Arabic.

In addition, he himself does not have the ability to organize shipping ships.  Beyond that, there was no involvement of defendant 1 in the relationship between Parisi and three.

Later, Yehoshua Shlosh approached defendant 1 and asked for his services in financing the costs and expenses of release in respect of the goods that are the subject of charges 4-7, and the defendant agreed to this, since such a service is part of his business.

Previous part1...104105
106...320Next part