In summary, I reject with both hands the version of defendant 1, according to which he acted on behalf of Karim Bakir, who allegedly ordered the goods for the ICC company, in respect of which I have already determined that it is not an active company, with real business conduct.
The claim is also based on the telephone and fax numbers of a person named Kumar of Rasko, which were recorded in the personal diary of defendant 1 (P/363). Kumar's name appears in foreign letters, along with two numbers associated with him. The prosecution submitted a printout from the Business Index (P/462) relating to Rasco, in which it was written: "Contact Person: Mr. Vijay Kumar, Mr.". It was not argued before me that this document does not reflect the data appearing therein, and therefore there is evidentiary significance to the fact that the name of this comer appears in the personal diary of defendant 1, when it was proven before me that the same Kumar belonged to Rasco. This serves as additional circumstantial evidence of the connection between defendant 1 and the supplier, Rasko.
The goods were eventually released by means of a copy of the bill of lading faxed by Rasco to the freight forwarder, Orian, on September 15, 1999. The banknote was stamped with the Arab Bank's conversion stamp, and there is no material dispute that it is a forged stamp. Any attempt to claim that this is an authentic and legal stamp of the Arab Bank will not succeed, because it has been proven before me that the Arab Bank does not possess such a stamp, and the testimony of the Attorney General rules out any possibility that it is a stamp that was duly stamped.
The goods can be released through the waybill presenter, which is prepared for the bank's order and returned to its order. Needless to say, without such a conversion, it will not be possible to release the goods. The signature of the bank's receipt in favor of the importer will be made only against payment of the price of the goods, and in our case, by way of redemption of the documents to the collector. The goods, which are the subject of this indictment, arrived at the port by sea, and when we are dealing with sea transport, goods can only be released against an original bill of lading, which is duly transferred. This rule does not apply when it comes to air freight, when the goods can also be released by means of a copy of the bill of lading. How, then, were the goods that are the subject of the third indictment released, when the original bill of lading was sent to the Arab Bank, and there is no dispute that it was not in the possession of the defendants?