During his interrogations with the police, Defendant 3 described the requests of the Arab customers, and even provided telephone numbers and a detailed physical description of them.
In his testimony in court, Defendant 3 changed his mind, and gave a suppressed, tendentious version, full of contradictions and refutations, according to which he was in contact with Defendant 1 and not with the Arab clients.
Therefore, it was argued, it was not proven that defendant 1 was the orderer of the goods or an interested party in the goods, and all the claims of the prosecution in this context are mere allegations.
It was further claimed that Defendant 1 had no part in taking the goods and in the use of forged stamps and signatures, as well as the use of forged documents.
The argument that defendant 1 and the other defendants took a copy of the bill of lading that was prepared for the order of the bank of the collector, and stamped a forged stamp on it, without paying for the goods and without the bill of lading being lawfully converted in their favor.
The defendant does not deny that he assisted Yehoshua Shlosh in carrying out various technical operations, such as directing transporters, but this does not bind the defendant to the goods and attribute to him responsibility for their release.
The defendant does not deny that after the goods were imported and released by Yehoshua Shlosh and Araldo Frisi, he was informed that the customers had withdrawn from the sale to the Palestinian Authority, and therefore it was necessary to find an Israeli customer to purchase the goods. The defendant had an interest in the goods being purchased by a customer, since he financed the costs and expenses of the release. However, it is claimed, defendant 1 did not know who the customer to whom the goods were sold, and only in retrospect did he learn that the purchaser was Avi Kalmaro & Co. OPCI.
As to the claim that false sales accounts were submitted and fictitious tax invoices were issued, in order to reduce tax payments and offset unlawful inputs, it was argued that defendant 1 had nothing to do with this. He knows nothing about the sales accounts that were submitted to the customs brokers for the purpose of releasing the goods, and he himself did not produce or issue these accounts. He claimed that he did not have the bills of lading in his possession at all and that he did not attach any document of any kind to them.