The witness Besson was cross-examined at lengthy and detailed, but he insisted that the person who was in direct and close contact with him was Defendant 1.
After examining the testimony of Pinchas Besson, I found no reason not to give full weight to his statement, according to which the entities that operated the companies ICT, JCC and Sevilla were Yehoshua Chelouche (ICT and JCC only) and Defendant 1, who falsely presented himself as a discarded life.
It should be recalled that this is not the first time that defendant 1 has used to introduce himself under a pseudonym, and as may be recalled, he also did so in the offices of the "Migdal" company, when he introduced himself as "Avi", which is the name that defendant 1 initially gave to Pinchas Basson.
I categorically reject the false denial of defendant 1 in this context, and establish as a fact that he was the one behind the relevant companies, while impersonating another.
Concrete reinforcement for this fact can also be found in the words of Yehoshua Shlosh, in his recorded conversation with Defendant 3, where he said, "Later Uri was looking for an accountant, so Nathan Harpaz brought his bookkeeper from Tel Aviv, I was once with this bookkeeper, he knows that I am Shlosh Yehoshua, but the one who gave me the material is everything Uri, and Uri introduced himself under a different name." Additional reinforcements can be found in the telephone numbers that Pinch Basson had in his possession, which there is no dispute that belong to Defendant 1.
In my previous remarks, I noted the unreliability of defendant 1, in various contexts, and I determine that even on this question, the testimony of defendant 1 was unreliable, and as usual, he did not hesitate to say false statements on most of the issues on which he testified in this case, including the question of his relations with Pinchas Basson.
As a result of the aforesaid, it can be determined that when Yehoshua Shlosh presented himself, as a representative of the ICT company, in order to receive a copy of the cargo regime? In order to imprint on him the forged stamp of charge of the Arab Bank, he did so with the knowledge and opinion of defendant 1, who was also behind the ICT company.