In light of the aforesaid, it was argued that the prosecution did not prove any evasion of payment of the tax charges in the context of the seventh charge, and therefore defendant 1 should be acquitted of all the offenses attributed to him in this charge.
Defendant 3's arguments regarding charges 4-7
- The summaries of Defendant 3, Araldo Frizzi, refer to Charges 4-7 as a whole.
A significant part of the summaries is devoted to the argument that defendant 3 should be acquitted because he is protected from justice, and we have discussed this in the chapter on this matter.
In the summaries of defendant 3, it is argued that the scope of the dispute in the case is very narrow, since the defendant does not deny most of the facts attributed to him, but rather claims that there was no criminal intent behind his actions, and that he acted in a normal manner of business conduct. According to Defendant 3, he served as an intermediary in the purchase transactions attributed to him in the indictment, in exchange for a reasonable commission, as was customary in the market at the time. Defendant 3 does not know anything about the fraudulent acts of Defendant 1, and he was not an accomplice to these acts and did not take part in the conspiracy to commit them. Due to the failures of the investigation and the prosecution, Defendant 3 encountered real difficulties in dealing with the evidence and was forced to provide evidence and find witnesses who could have strengthened his version. The prosecution's evidence in the case of Defendant 3 is based on hypotheses, assumptions and conclusions and not on positive evidence, which is sufficient to lift the burden of proof for the purpose of determining that Defendant 3 is committing the relevant charges together with Defendant 1.
During his interrogation with the police, Defendant 3 confirmed "With a full mouth and without any fear" Because he was the one who ordered the goods that are the subject of charges 4-7. According to him, he did not know that this was a "sting" deal, and as far as he was concerned, all his actions were carried out under the direction and instructions of Defendant 1, without knowing that these were alleged criminal acts. The testimony of defendant 3 in court was not suppressed testimony, in light of the fact that in the memorandum P/333, defendant 3 clarified that he acted all along only in accordance with Uri Resch's instructions, and that he was afraid to testify against him due to threats to his life.