This fact can also be learned from Shlosh's conversation with Defendant 3, from which it appears that he spoke with Defendant 1 about receiving his share of the sale of the goods, at a rate of 50%.
The indictment alleges that defendant 1 and Yehoshua Shlosh used the notes, which are the subject of the third indictment, as input invoices, and deducted the appellant's payment of taxes according to them as input tax, even though they were false notes. Thus, according to the prosecution, the defendants illegally deducted inputs, without having a document regarding them. In this regard, it was claimed that the defendants issued ICT invoices No. 30 and No. 31, which were illegally deducted as inputs by Swela Trading Ltd. It was also claimed that these were fictitious invoices, since they do not relate to any real transactions.
I did not find in the prosecution summaries any reference to this matter, and from a perusal of ICT invoices No. 30 (P/247) and No. 31 (P/248), no direct connection was found to the import transaction, which is described in the third charge. In invoice No. 30, we are dealing with computers, whereas in our case, we are dealing with audio devices, whereas in invoice No. 31, we are dealing with "electrical products that are different from imported inventory", and it is not clear whether this is the same transaction. In this regard, I cannot reject the argument of counsel for defendant 1 that "these are invoices that do not belong to the transaction at all", both because they are not the same goods and because of the difference in monetary values.
Therefore, the defendant should not be convicted of offenses relating to this matter.
In summary: I hold that the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant 1 was involved in the forgery of the bill of lading, by stamping, whether by himself or by anyone on his behalf, a forged stamp of charge of the Arab Bank, and also forged the sales account, from which it emerges, as it were, that the supplier is a Manhattan company from New York, with the sums stated in this account being substantially less than the sums appearing in the original account. Therefore, defendant 1 should be convicted of two offenses of forgery of a document with the intention of obtaining something through it under aggravated circumstances, under section 418 of the Penal Law. The aggravating circumstances lie in the great sophistication that defendant 1 showed in the commission of the offense, the scope of the criminal activity, and the considerable financial significance deriving from the commission of the offense.