With regard to the fraudulent scheme, the testimony of Ephraim Meir, which is denied by Defendant 1, according to which he was asked to deliver to this defendant a blank letterhead of "Arab Bank". The testimony of Ephraim Meir, in this context, is acceptable to me, and I see no reason why he should give things that are not true in this matter, even if an attempt was made by him to reduce and minimize his part. I do not give any credence to defendant 1's denial of the matter, and to the fact that this defendant requested to receive a letterhead of "Arab Bank", there is evidentiary importance in the context of what is alleged in the indictment, that a forged stamp of the bank was used.
It should be noted that in the diary of defendant 1 (P/363), this defendant wrote the name Ephraim Meir and the "Ahavat Eitan" company of Beit El (owned by Ephraim Meir), plus the fax number 02-9973508, belonging to Ephraim Meir.
To complete the picture, I will note that defendant 3, in his statement to the police (P/330), gave false details regarding the letter (P/292), which he sent to the supplier's representative, Mr. Ali Sadiq, by stating that he had received the details of Jack Cohen from Mizrahi Bank, from a man named Jamal, from the company ICC, and then, pass the letter to the supplier. In the same statement, defendant 3 had no explanation for the fact that this was not in fact a letter from Mizrahi Bank, and that the telephone numbers appearing on the letter did not exist in the bank.
As stated, in court, defendant 3 changed his reasoning, and admitted that he had lied to his interrogators in this context as well. On the basis of the facts described above, it can be clearly determined that defendants 1 and 3 were behind the sending of the false letter (P/292) to the supplier's representative, in order to satisfy him that this was a genuine transaction, and that the bank was responsible for the payment of the money, upon receipt of the necessary documents. The two defendants clearly knew that this was a misrepresentation of the supplier, and that Mizrahi Bank was not involved, at all, in this transaction, and that there was no obligation on the part of the bank to cover the cost of the import.