Caselaw

Criminal Case (Tel Aviv) 40013/05 State of Israel v. Uri Resch - part 137

September 13, 2011
Print

On September 15, 1999, the goods arrived in Israel and were received by the freight forwarder, Orian.  According to the prosecution, defendant 1 took a photocopy of the bill of lading prepared for the order of the Arab Bank and stamped a forged bank stamp on it.  Attached to the bill of lading was a document posing as a sales account from the Manhattan company, which is believed to be the supplier of the goods, in the amount of $287,018.  In order to prove its claims, the prosecution points to circumstantial evidence that shows, in its view, the involvement of defendant 1 in the commission of the acts.  The prosecution learned about the connection between defendant 1 and the fictitious company ICC from the letter of the supplier's counsel to the forwarder, Orian Company, P/35A, dated September 29, 1999, in which the name of the client was mentioned on the wall of the ICC company, and his telephone and fax numbers appeared.  It turns out that the numbers mentioned are the telephone and fax numbers used by defendant 1.  Since there is no likelihood that this wall contains telephone numbers belonging to the defendant, it can be concluded that this person is Defendant 1 and not another, and the method of impersonation that characterizes him can also be learned from other affairs mentioned in the indictment.  I accept the prosecution's argument in this context, according to which it can be learned from document P/35A that the supplier's familiarity with the telephone numbers belonging to defendant 1 is circumstantially linked this defendant to the order of the goods, and I have not heard any satisfactory explanation as to how these telephone numbers came into the supplier's possession, if it was not defendant 1 or anyone on his behalf who presented them to him.

The defense's arguments that an unknown wall was used by him in the office services of defendant 1 are mere claims, without credible evidence being brought to support them, and it is needless to say that the same wall was not brought to testify on behalf of defendant 1, and this is demanding.

Previous part1...136137
138...320Next part