In all charges 3-7, the goods were released in exactly the same way, when Yehoshua Shlosh approached the customs broker, presenting himself as a representative of the importing companies, the ICT straw companies (regarding charges 3 and 7) and JCC (regarding charges 4-6). Chelouche received a copy of the cargo regime from the sender and returned it with a forged Arab Bank transfer stamp. Shlosh was in direct contact with the forwarder, the customs broker and the drivers, until the goods were delivered to defendants 1 and 4. As previously claimed, the prosecution further claims that ICT companies and JCC are shell companies, which were used by defendants 1 and 3 only.
Chelouche himself admitted in his conversation with Defendant 3 that he had received the documents from Defendant 1, and that he had named Araldo Frizzi, only because he had seen his name on the documents.
The goods, which are the subject of the fourth indictment, were released according to an import license (P/114) in the name of the alleged importer, i.e., the JCC straw company and through the customs broker, Noah Niv. The goods were released on the basis of a copy of an air transport document bearing a forged grandfather stamp of the Arab Bank (P/29).
The goods that are the subject of the fifth indictment were released according to an import license (P/112), also in the name of the JCC straw company, and the release was made on the basis of a copy of an air transport document, bearing a forged grandfather stamp of the Arab Bank (P/30).
Attached to the import lists were fake supplier accounts from an unknown company called "Trust Exports Pte. Ltd", ostensibly from New York State. In the summaries of the lawsuit, it is claimed that an Internet search for this company does not yield any results.
The prosecution also found many discrepancies and inaccuracies in the company's paper, compared to the data that should have been written, had it indeed been a real company.
The prosecution is of the opinion that it was able to point to direct and conclusive evidence that it was defendant 1 who forged the accounts, which were attached to the import records.