During his interrogation with the police, Ephraim Meir said that Defendant 1 contacted him and asked him to confirm, to whom he would contact him by phone, that he knew of some computer transaction, "and then a phone call came to me for a business in Beit-El, they told me, 'Hello, are we talking to Mizrahi Bank?' I replied that no and the person behind the line mentioned computer business or a letter of credit, I do not remember whether he asked for approval for the letter..." (Statement of 26 November 2003, P/294). Later, further talks were held with Ephraim Meir regarding the computer deal, and he confirmed the existence of the deal, although he claimed that he had answered in the negative to the question of whether he was speaking on behalf of Mizrahi Bank.
As to the suspicion that Ephraim Meir was connected to the stamping of the forged stamps on the copies of the bills of lading sent to "Arab Bank", the man denied this, but confirmed that defendant 1 contacted him, and asked him if he had the ability to extract a letter from "Arab Bank" in Ramallah. According to him, he contacted a man named Abed, who gave him an original "Arab Bank" letterhead, which was sent to Defendant 1, by fax. When he asked defendant 1, why did he need the letter? Hela replied, "What do you care, I want to get a blank 'Arab Bank' stationery. I do not remember whether he asked with a signature or not" (P/294). In addition, Ephraim Meir spoke of his acquaintance with Defendant 3, who was introduced to him by Defendant 1 "as an expert in business affairs". As stated, Ephraim Meir denied, both in his statements to the police and in his testimony in court, that he had falsely presented himself as a representative of Mizrahi Bank, and in this regard I prefer, clearly and unequivocally, Mr. Sadiq's testimony.
In my opinion, there is no logic in sending a false letter to Mr. Sadiq, as it were, on behalf of Mizrahi Bank, bearing the telephone numbers belonging to Ephraim Meir, without being asked to confirm to anyone who calls him, that he does indeed represent the bank, and confirms the existence of the transaction and the bank's financial obligation. Even if Ephraim Meir was not an accomplice to the fraudulent acts committed against the supplier, there is no doubt that he is trying to distance himself from involvement in the affair, by falsely denying that he impersonated himself as a representative of Mizrahi Bank, and I determine as a fact that he did so, at the request of defendant 1. Defendant 3 is also involved in presenting the false representation to the supplier, by giving him a forged letter on behalf of Mizrahi Bank, bearing the telephone numbers of Ephraim Meir.