In summary, it was argued that the accuser has no positive evidence to support the claim that defendant 3 knew that he was ordering goods for a non-existent customer, or that no consideration would be paid for the goods, and that the latter would be released from customs by improper means. The conclusion that the prosecution draws is not the only conclusion, and it is possible to reach additional conclusions that are consistent with the version of defendant 3.
Therefore, the defense seeks to acquit defendant 3 of the charges attributed to him on charges 4-7. In any event, it was argued that the prosecution did not prove the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt, and that defendant 3 should be acquitted, if only because of the doubt.
Defendant 4's arguments regarding Charges 4, 5 and 7
- This defendant's arguments relate, as a whole, to charges 4-7, since according to the prosecution, this is a reuse made by the defendants in the same fraudulent method. The prosecution claims that defendant 4 was a joint perpetrator of the acts attributed to him in the indictment, but according to the defense's approach: "However, no evidence was brought that indicates the part of this defendant, and this is not the only conclusion that is required from the circumstantial evidence.". According to Adv. Meirovich, counsel for defendant 4, it was defendant 1 who planned the fraudulent acts in all the transactions, acting fraudulently from the outset and using the names and personal details of others. In contrast to defendant 1, defendant 4's conduct was open, and he used his full details, his address, and the telephone and fax numbers that he used. Is this how a person who wishes to deceive the supplier of goods behaves? Attorney Meirovich wonders and asks. In her view, defendant 4 was a pawn in the hands of defendant 1, and he treated him as he did with others.
In order to prove his innocence, the defendant made great efforts to summon the two prosecution witnesses that the accuser was unable to bring, namely Kobi Zoaretz and Avi Ben Nissan. In doing so, the defendant rallied in favor of the accuser, by assisting her in exposing them. These witnesses, according to the accuser, proved beyond a doubt that defendant 1 was driving in a winding way and that lying was a way of life for him. The witnesses supported the version of defendant 4, and proved that this defendant used his hands as material in the hands of the creator.