Against the background of the interrogators' repeated questions and against the background of the mental distress in which he was in, the defendant gave Tenenbaum's name "in places where he had no intention of mentioning him." After the trauma suffered by Defendant 1 in the Customs interrogation, and after consulting with an attorney, the defendant decided to maintain his right to remain silent during the rest of his interrogations before the customs authorities. This is due to the scandalous manner in which the customs investigators operate, and the fact is that when the defendant was interrogated by the police, he did not maintain his right to remain silent. Therefore, the defense argues, the defendant should not be credited with the fact that he maintained his right to remain silent during his interrogations at customs.
In light of all of the above, the defense is of the opinion that the prosecution did not prove the offenses attributed to the defendant in the framework of the eighth indictment, and certainly not at a level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Defendant 5's arguments regarding indictment 8
- In the summaries of defendant 5, it was argued that there is no dispute that no offense was committed against the Ofsa company, and there is no dispute that the defendant was not involved in the release of the goods from customs.
The defendant's involvement was limited to ordering the goods from Reset and sending them by ship to a port in Israel, and he has no involvement in the release of the goods from customs or in activity with entities in the local market. Defendant 5's main occupation, through companies he owned, was the provision of financing services, financial services, check clearing and office services. The business relationship between defendant 5 and the Piccolo company-The line was also made within the framework of the defendant's areas of business, namely: the provision of financing and financial services, the provision of office services, the granting of import authorization, and the distribution of Opsa products in Israel. Piccolo Company-Line was founded in 1996 by Yigal Fadlon and Mario Weissman for the purpose of "importing and marketing electrical and electronic products". For the purpose of its activity, it needed a bank account, but PAGI Bank, to which the two approached, was not willing to give credit except in exchange for a guarantee from the Kirrusel company, which was owned by defendant 5, and indeed this guarantee was given as required. In addition, defendant 5 supplied Piccolo-The line has various office services, including room rental and bookkeeping services. At some point, after Weissman left the company, due to disagreements between him and Fadlon, defendant 5 traveled to Spain, came to Opsa, through family connections, and received the exclusive concession to import the goods to Israel. The defendant undertook to purchase quantities as demanded by Opse, and even opened a line of credit in the amount of €600,000 as demanded by Opsa. Defendant 5 claims that the franchise owner is obligated to purchase a minimum amount of goods, according to the forecast at the beginning of the year.