Avi Kalmaro, who could not deny the fact that he was "caught in the palm", raised a suppressed argument that he was not involved in the transaction that is the subject of the sixth indictment, but was an innocent keeper of the goods, at the request of defendant 1. According to Defendant 1, this version of Kalmaro is unreliable, tendentious and full of rebuttals and contradictions.
In light of the above, it was argued that the prosecution did not prove the defendant's guilt, as far as the theft of the goods was concerned, using forged stamps and signatures or other forged documents.
As to the allegations regarding the illegal reduction of tax payments by filing false sales accounts, it was claimed that defendant 1 had nothing to do with the order of the goods, the handling of the shipping proceedings and the release proceedings. Therefore, defendant 1 could not derive any benefit from the reduction of the amounts in the sales accounts. Needless to say, he denies any allegation of forgery and use of forged documents.
Therefore, defendant 1 also sought his acquittal for the offenses of evading the payment of import taxes or any other tax.
Defendant 4's arguments regarding indictment 6
- The defense argues that in this indictment, the only fact specifically attributed to defendant 4 is fact No. 11, according to which the defendant received "Fake goods" For the defendants, through a moving company. Defendant 4 does not dispute the fact that at the request of defendant 1 he assisted him by waiting for the transport company that transported the goods, since defendant 1's client was late in arriving at the collection point. According to Adv. Meirovich, counsel for defendant 4, the accuser did not present any evidence proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant 4 entered into a transaction for the purchase of computer processors with the other defendants and that he was involved in forging the stamp of the bank collecting or other fraudulent acts. The mere presence of defendant 4 in the Shilat compound, waiting for the car, which placed the goods in the parking lot in the industrial zone, does not attest to his criminal involvement. Defendant 4 did not do with the goods as he owned, he did not unpack them from their packaging and did not take the goods into his hands, but waited until another vehicle arrived, intended for loading the goods, according to the instructions of defendant 1. Even if the actions of defendant 4 can be viewed as a kind of brokerage, then, according to the case law, a person who mediates in the sale and purchase of stolen assets is not a recipient of the goods, and he should not be convicted of receiving anything obtained through the crime. Therefore, the defense seeks to acquit defendant 4 of the offenses attributed to him in the sixth charge.