According to the prosecution's approach, the fact that defendant 5 managed the Piccolo company-Lane was proven in many evidences, including that he provided this company with paid management services, as detailed in the agreement (S/98) and as proved by the management fee invoices. It was also proven that he managed all of Piccolo's import business-Lane, on the basis of correspondence between her and Opsa.
The lawsuit refers to the clauses that appear in the various tax laws that define the criminal liability of an active manager in a company, where an active manager can be someone who does not have a formal status or position in the corporation.
According to the relevant laws, an officer of a corporation is liable for a kind of-Vicarious for the commission of the offense committed by the corporation itself. This is not an absolute responsibility, but rather a strict responsibility, which places a reduced burden on the accuser's shoulders to prove only the factual basis.
In light of the above, the prosecution argues that once the physical elements of the offenses that are the subject of the eighth indictment have been proven, it is necessary to examine whether defendant 5 has any defense that exempts him from criminal liability. The accuser answers this question in the negative, since defendant 5 categorically denied the existence of any connection to the companies concerned, and did not raise any alternative defense claim. According to the prosecution's approach, the denials of defendant 5 are unreliable, and they are sharply and clearly contradicted by the objective evidence in the file. Apart from his testimony, defendant did not bring 5 pieces of evidence in his defense, while he could have summoned a witness from the doubt to support his version.
On the basis of the evidence presented and detailed in the prosecution's summaries, the prosecution seeks to convict the defendants, with the exception of defendant 4, of all the offenses attributed to them in the eighth charge.