Ephraim Meir stated that he knew that Defendant 3 lived in the north of the country, in the area of code 04, and that he was presented by Defendant 1 "as an accomplice in all intents and purposes" (Q. 24).
The witness added that the contact with defendant 3 was not continuous "except when I was told to listen, someone from abroad would call you and ask for confirmation of this..." (Q. 29).
As stated, on the basis of the circumstantial evidence detailed above, I determine that defendants 1 and 3 were the ones who prepared the forged stamp of the Arab Bank, and they were the ones who stamped it on the bills of lading. Although the driving force in this case, as in most of the other cases, was Defendant 1, Defendant 3 should be seen as a joint perpetrator, and not only as an accomplice of the fraudulent scheme in the context of the fourth charge.
I do not accept the arguments of counsel for defendant 3 that this defendant is deceived by defendant 1, and when the facts speak for themselves, and show that the supplier, who was in direct and constant contact with defendant 3, did not receive the consideration for the goods that were sent by him and released, there is no doubt that defendant 3 is responsible for this, to the same extent as defendant 1.
In order to strengthen the evidence regarding the preparation of the forged stamps and their imprint on the bills of lading, we can point to the words of Yehoshua Shlosh, in his recorded conversation with defendant 3, when he said , "Forget it, it's nonsense, it's an Arab bank, on the eve of a bank, so there was someone from Ramallah who received $100, went and arranged the stamp, everything in the bank."
I will discuss Yehoshua Shlosh's role in this parasha at length in his separate ruling.
With regard to the issue of non-payment for the shipment and release of the goods in Israel, I have already noted in my previous remarks that the evidence clearly shows that the various suppliers did not receive any consideration for the goods they sent, and insofar as there is a different argument on the part of the defendants' counsel, they should have presented some evidence in this matter, even if it is very meagre and general.