As for the check for the order of the Savilla company in the sum of NIS 220,000, it is not possible to know who deposited or cashed the check, and there is no evidence that it was transferred or cashed by Uri Resch. On the other hand, the evidence shows that defendant 4 pocketed at least NIS 780,000, while the balance of the sum – about NIS 230,000 – was shared by defendants 3 and 4 with Zoaretz and Ben Nissan.
With regard to the involvement of the Savilla company in the transaction, defendant 1 claims that this company was incorporated for the purpose of increasing the volume of transactions in which it is involved, in order to obtain higher bank credit. Invoice No. 3 issued by Sevilla is a real invoice, representing a transaction that actually took place. As far as defendant 1 knows, ICT released the goods from customs, sold them to Sevilla, and then sold the goods to OPCI owned by Avi Kalamaro, defendant 4. In the entire sequence described above, defendant 1 had no involvement.
In summary, it was argued that defendant 1 did not commit any theft of the goods, did not use the stamps or signatures of the Arab Bank, and did not commit the offense of fraud.
As to the allegations regarding the issuance of fictitious tax invoices and the unlawful deduction of inputs, it was claimed by defendant 1 that he had no hand or leg in this matter. He did not hand over any document, false or authentic, to the representative of the customs broker, and did not ask anyone to issue a bill of lading or a bill of sale for him, for the transaction that is the subject of the seventh indictment. The person who handled the release of the goods alone was Yehoshua Shlosh, who presented himself as the sole representative of the ICT company. Another argument made by defendant 1 is that the bill of sale was not forged and no reduction of the value of the goods was made. There was also no reason to prepare a false sales account in order to reduce the cost in the account, since the companies involved – according to the lawsuit, are shell companies – and cannot deduct VAT, and therefore there was no logic in reducing the amounts in the sales account.