Caselaw

Criminal Case (Tel Aviv) 40013/05 State of Israel v. Uri Resch - part 183

September 13, 2011
Print

With regard to the claim that it was a straw company, defendant 1 reiterated that Planes was a real and active company that was registered in Belgium by Araldo Frizzi, defendant 3.  In retrospect, Defendant 1 found out that Plans was operated and managed through a business called PSI based in Belgium, which provides management services, through a link of another company, called LPS.  One of PSI's employees, who was appointed as a business manager with officials in Israel, was a man named Lou Duka Vincent, who was summoned to testify in court.

According to Le Duque, he was given the task of running Plan's business by his managers and was asked to introduce himself as Christian Roger whenever he contacted Plan's customers or suppliers.  This testimony explains the fact that Defendant 1 knew Le Duquette under the name Christian Roger, and the words came together only during the trial.  Le Duque confirmed the relationship he had established on behalf of Plans with Ofsa and with the client Danidov, and also approved the issuance of sales accounts from Plans to Danidov.  He also confirmed the authority of defendant 1 to print the sales accounts in Israel on firm papers that he sent to this defendant.  In his testimony, Duke reminded him of Mrs. Nicole Thierry who was his manager at PSI and who continued to manage the company even after he left it.  According to Le Duque, Ms. Thierry passed away a few months before his testimony, and this was proven by an official certificate indicating that Ms. Thierry existed and that she died on the date indicated by the witness.  Since all the relevant material was in the possession of Ms. Thiery, and despite Le Duquet's many efforts to locate the material, it turned out that this was not possible.  It was further argued that the prosecution could have requested legal assistance from the Belgian authorities to locate the material, and since it refrained from doing so, it was an evidentiary omission, which establishes a presumption that the documents were located and that they are capable of confirming everything stated in Le Duque's testimony.

Previous part1...182183
184...320Next part