It should be noted that the arguments of Adv. Ehud Dagan, counsel for defendant 5, are an almost complete repetition of the arguments raised by him during the trial and were rejected by me in the detailed decision of October 22, 2008.
Another new argument relates to the prosecution's decision to request the acquittal of defendant 4 of the offenses attributed to him in the framework of the eighth indictment, but I have not found that this constitutes selective enforcement, which justifies the cancellation of the indictment in the case of defendant 5.
In light of the above, I reject the arguments that the indictment should be quashed or the defendants should be acquitted because they have a claim of protection from justice, or because of the other arguments raised by their counsel.
Charges 1 and 2
Introduction to Charges 1 and 2
- In the Introduction to Charges 1 and 2 It was alleged that in 1999 Defendant 1 himself (regarding Charge 1), and with Defendant 4 (regarding Charge 2), planned to defraud suppliers of goods from abroad, by ordering goods to various entities in Israel and agreeing to pay for the imports, by way of opening documentary letters of credit. The intention of defendant 1 and his accomplices was to cause the opening bank to not honor the documentary letters of credit, and in this way he and his partners would steal the goods, by taking them illegally and without paying for them at all.
According to the fraudulent scheme, defendant 1 is supposed to approach a customer of a bank and ask him to use his bank account and the volume of credit given to him, so that the bank will open, at the request of that customer, a letter of credit in favor of a supplier of goods. Later, defendant 1 is supposed to draft the letters of credit by way of fraud and deception that will cause the suppliers of the goods to fail to meet the terms of the letter of credit. In this way, the supplier of the goods will not receive his money even though he sent the goods to Israel, since the bank that opened the letter of credit will not honor the letter, due to reservations that defendant 1 will not remove.