On the merits of the matter, it was argued that defendant 5 was not an active manager, since according to case law, three cumulative conditions are required for the formation of the status of an active manager: that the defendant is an officer or an officer, or an employee of a corporation; that as part of his position in the corporation, he was given control and supervision in the area in which the offense was committed; who could have prevented the commission of the offense due to his position in the corporation.
All of these conditions are not met in Defendant 5.
As to the allegations regarding a fraudulent scheme hatched between the defendants, it was claimed by defendant 5 that he had no part in the sale of the products in the Israeli market, and therefore he had no interest in reducing the amount of the import taxes obligated.
It was further argued that there was no evidence that Piccolo-Line purchased the goods at a reduced price. The evidence shows that the cost of buying Piccolo-Line from the Sevilla company was the same as the cost of the goods, when these were purchased directly from Afsa.
According to defendant 5, this is not a conspiracy between the defendants, and there is also no evidence that this is a joint commission of an offense, in which defendant 5 was involved in the commission.
With regard to the allegation in the indictment that Defendant 1 forged sales accounts, according to which the supplier of the goods was Plans, the Plan accounts were printed at the invitation of Defendant 1, without Defendant 5 having any information on this matter.
Defendant 5 had no connection with the exchange of the supplier's invoices, and the documents did not pass through his hands.
In addition, defendant 5 had no information regarding the handling of the customs clearance proceedings, and the prosecution also agrees that the defendant did not handle this personally.
In addition, it was argued that there is nothing in the evidence that connects defendant 5 to the Danidov company, and also according to the prosecution's version, this is a company that was controlled by defendant 1.