From this it appears that 117 computers were officially sold by OPCI, and according to the record made by defendant 4 (P/389), an additional 87 computers were distributed, whether to accomplices in the fraudulent acts, or to a sale without an invoice.
As far as these computers are concerned, the prosecution seeks to convict defendant 4 of the offense of false registration in books of accounts with the intention of evading tax payment, under section 220(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance.
It should be noted that the third amended indictment, which as far as the court is concerned, does not attribute any offense to defendant 4, but during the trial the prosecution sought to amend the indictment and add defendant 4 as the person who committed the offense of receiving assets obtained in the crime, according to section 411 of the Penal Law.
I am of the opinion that from the totality of the evidence, it can be learned from the knowledge of defendant 4 that the laptops were taken out fraudulently, or received in a crime, and that this is not a valid transaction. This can be seen from the entries in OPCI's books of accounts, and mainly from the fact that the consideration to Sevilla, which is supposedly behind the sale of the computers to OPCI, was not paid, or was paid in a minimal manner.
From the OPCI swila card, it appears that payments made by OPCI were eventually returned to the OPCI account, or checks delivered were not paid.
Defendant 4 himself admitted that the consideration for the sale of the computers exceeded the sum of NIS 1 million, when it was proven that OPCI paid only NIS 229,000, and also transferred a refund from a tax appeal in the amount of NIS 429,000 to the company "Nofar Dynamic Ltd.", which belongs to defendant 1, Uri Resch.
The question of why this sum was transferred to Nofar Dynamic, and not to Sevilla, which was, allegedly, the supplier of the goods, was not answered.
In his summaries, defendant 4 claimed that the goods that are the subject of the seventh indictment did indeed reach his possession, but according to him, he had no basis to assume or suspect that the goods were obtained by crime. He conducted himself in a routine and regular manner in the customary and legitimate way of business, and did not use pseudonyms and forged documents, as is the way of defendant 1.