Mrs. Hannah Oren, manager of a branch of the office services called "Migdal", testified that she received written material from defendant 1, who introduced himself as "my father", with handwritten corrections on it, and was asked to reprint the material, including the corrections. These documents are similar in content to the original supplier's account that is the subject of indictment 5, which indicates that he is the one behind the fraudulent acts relating to this indictment. The prosecution considers this to be incriminating evidence of the first order, and since this is the same fictitious company mentioned in charges 4-6, we have before us "direct and incriminating evidence of the falsification of the accounts on these three charges."
The fraudulent offenses attributed to the defendants are rooted in reducing the amounts of goods imported to Israel in the supplier's accounts, in order to evade payment of tax appeals and to receive reduced import taxes.
In the import register, which is the subject of indictment 4, it is stated that the cost of the goods is over NIS 35,889.91, while in the account of the real supplier the price of the goods is $181,870.
Hence, this is a reduction in the cost of the goods by 81.86%, while the amount of tax that was omitted is NIS 105,826.
In the fifth charge, the cost of goods was declared to be NIS 122,335, while the real supplier's calculation shows that the price is $120,580. This is a reduction of 75.34% and the amount of tax that was omitted is NIS 33,912.
The goods that are the subject of charges 4 and 5 were received by defendant 4, Avi Kalmaro, and sold them through OPCI. The prosecution claims that it proved that defendant 1 was in direct contact with the carrier, and that it was he who received the goods.
Avi Kalmaro himself sold the goods at a price lower than the cost prices, when the amount was 40% lower, even without taking into account the expenses required to import the goods to Israel and release them from customs. Defendant 4, Avi Kalmaro, denied that his girlfriend had received the goods that are the subject of charges 4 and 5, but claimed that he had purchased the goods from a person from Karmiel, who left the country a long time ago, never to return. However, Kalmaro confirmed that the invoice (P/471) with which he allegedly purchased the goods was fictitious. In addition, Avi Kalmaro confirmed that if evidence is presented that all the goods, which are the subject of charges 4 and 5, passed through him and were sold by him, then this is overwhelming evidence that he is involved in the commission of the offenses that are the subject of these charges.