In the tax years 1999-2000, defendants 5 and 6, with the assistance of defendant 1 and on behalf of the Piccolo company-False periodic reports, according to which input tax was deducted from the tax they owe, according to the Savilla invoices, in a manner that detracts from the appellant's payments Taxes The sum of NIS 580,162, not according to tax invoices that were lawfully issued to them. The prosecution claims that in addition to the use made of the Danidov corporation for the purpose of releasing the goods from customs, the defendants did not maintain books of accounts in respect of the activities of the Danidov company, as required by the directive of the Section 66 Law From the"From.
In the tax years 1999-2000, defendant 1 submitted false periodic reports on behalf of Danidov in a manner that exempted Danidov from paying VAT, and this was not in accordance with tax invoices issued to Danidov lawfully. Despite the use made of the corporation OPCI In order to purchase the goods from the supplier Ofsa and bring them to Israel, defendants 1 and 4 did not record the purchase of the goods from Ofsa and their sale to Danidov, Swela or Piccolo-Line in my book OPCI.
The lawsuit claims that the companies OPCI, Danidov and Swela did not play any real role in the import transactions, the subject of the eighth indictment, and the defendants used them to conceal the fraudulent scheme and to evade paying taxes. Although-OPCI She served as an importer, Danidov as the customs clearer and Sevilla as the seller of the goods to Piccolo-The rights in the goods were not transferred at any stage between the aforementioned companies, since the goods were in the control of defendants 1, 5 and 6 from the outset.
The defendants carried out these acts together, with the aim of fraudulently evading the payment of import taxes.
The acts of forgery and fraud were committed under aggravated circumstances that are rooted in the sophistication, scope and dimensions of the acts of forgery and fraud, as well as the result of a planned, systematic and prolonged effort. The tax offenses were also committed under aggravated circumstances due to the large number of charges and tax evasion amounts. The prosecution notes that for each of the false registers and invoices, a separate offense was attributed to the defendants.