Based on the practice of defendant 1 to order various documents, including supplier accounts, which are false and do not reflect a real reality, it can be determined, in circumstance, that the supplier's account of the Manhattan company of New York, which is by all accounts false and forged, was also prepared by defendant 1 or by anyone on his behalf.
In order to release the goods, Yehoshua Shlosh received all the documents from Defendant 1, as is clearly evident from the conversation that took place between Shlosh and Defendant 3. Although the words are not specifically directed at the events described in Charge No. 3, it is possible to conclude from that conversation, with respect to all Charges 3-7, regarding the involvement and activity of Defendant 1.
The goods were eventually released by means of the forged documents, i.e., the bill of lading bearing the forged bank stamp, and the false sales account, without any consideration being paid to the supplier.
Regarding the non-payment to the supplier, the defense argued that no evidence was presented that the supplier did not receive the consideration for the goods sent by him.
I reject this argument outright, since there is no dispute that the original documents, which were sent to the Arab Bank, were not redeemed by any person, and therefore, were not given to one party or another, but remained in the possession of the Arab Bank.
Therefore, it is easy to assume, as a matter of logic and common sense, that no consideration was paid to the supplier, and in this regard, I do not need a fax sent from Hong Kong to the freight forwarder's agent in Israel, Orion, from which it emerges that the goods should not be released due to the suspicion that a forged bank transfer was prepared, and that the goods should be returned to Hong Kong (P/20). In my opinion, even in the absence of this evidence, it is possible to conclude circumstantially, and by applying common sense, that the goods were spent fraudulently, without being paid for them, in whole or even in part.