With regard to defendant 1, the prosecution claims that there is no explanation as to how the goods reached defendant 4, unless it was done through him. He was in contact with the carrier, and he was the contact among all the other parties involved in the fraud. .
Among other things, the prosecution is based on the joint method of execution of charges 3-7, and as far as it is concerned, this is "the business card of Uri Resch and his partners."
In all cases, it is a matter of ordering goods in the name of a fictitious Palestinian customer named ICC from Beit Jala, there is an agreement to pay by way of redemption of documents that will be sent to the Arab Bank in the territories of the Palestinian Authority, followed by forging the Arab Bank's conversion stamp on a copy of the bills of lading using the same stamp, and finally releasing the goods by means of a copy of the bill of lading that was forged, and using one of the ICT or JCC stamp companies.
In all cases, it is a matter of replacing the real supplier's account with a fake account, in which the identity of the supplier is different and the cost of the goods has been significantly reduced from the real cost.
An almost absolute identity in the method of execution serves as a kind of "business card" of the defendant, as someone who repeats and commits an offense using special methods of execution that are characteristic of him. In this way, it is possible to prove the identity of the offender, as the person behind all the offenses.
The prosecution views defendant 1 as the main perpetrator of the offenses and defendants 3 and 4 as joint perpetrators, of all the offenses attributed to them in charges 4 and 5.
Defendant 1's arguments regarding Charges 4 and 5
- With regard to these charges, it is claimed in the summaries of defendant 1 that the defendant denies what is alleged in the indictment, namely that he and the other defendants contracted with the ETT in a transaction for the import of computer processors into Israel, on behalf of the ICC. According to defendant 1, he never contracted with a company named ETT, not directly or through others.
The defendant denies that he ordered the goods from the suppliers or was involved in ordering them, or that he had an interest in ordering the goods, and he claims that the goods were ordered by defendant 3, Araldo Frizzi, through a company he operates called "Forum Office".