Caselaw

Criminal Case (Tel Aviv) 40013/05 State of Israel v. Uri Resch - part 177

September 13, 2011
Print

The acts attributed to Defendant 5, Roberto Wagman, are: the execution of the imports that are the subject of the eighth indictment in a circular format; Ordering the goods in the name of piccolo-Line; Providing the details of the Shell Plan company to a reset supplier; Opening letters of credit in favor of an opsa to finance the import of goods while requesting that the supplier's account be issued in the name of OPCI; Withdrawing checks from a piccolo account-to the order of the Seville straw company, ostensibly as payment for the goods; Depositing checks drawn from the Piccolo company-Line to the Sevilla Ordinance, which were converted into a Carousel Electronics account in the appeal Taxes and Nicholas Wagman's account.

The accuser does not claim that defendant 5 personally released the goods from customs, or that he was in contact with the customs brokers and warehouses, or that he was engaged in marketing the goods in the local market.  The aforementioned actions were carried out by Piccolo's employees-Lane, who was his business arm and worked for him.

The acts attributed to Defendant 6, Yigal Fadlon, are: the delivery of the forged supplier accounts in the name of Plan to the customs brokers; Ordering the goods that are the subject of the eighth indictment in the name of Piccolo-Line; Withdrawing checks from a piccolo account-Line to the order of the Straw Company of Seville, ostensibly as payment for the goods; Registration in Piccolo Books-the line of fictitious Savilla invoices; Registration in the books of Svila checks for its order, which were not presented for payment at all; Submission of false VAT reports.

As part of the summaries, the prosecution claimed that it had lifted the burden of proving the direct responsibility of defendant 5 for the offenses that are the subject of the eighth indictment as a joint perpetrator.  However, the prosecution has an alternative request, in the event that the court determines that the accuser did not meet the necessary burden, namely, to convict defendant 5 by virtue of the derivative liability of an active manager in the company.

Previous part1...176177
178...320Next part