As to the allegation regarding the use of false invoices by the Sevilla company, the evidence shows that the issuance and delivery of the invoices to Piccolo Line was not done by defendant 5.
The argument that defendant 5 did not control the Danidov company is also true in the case of the Sevilla company, since there is not a shred of evidence linking defendant 5 to the Sevilla company.
As to the claim that the invoices of the Savilla company do not represent a real transaction, defendant 5 claims that in another place various things were claimed by the state. The reference is to a notice of assessment (S/89) issued by the Customs and Tax Appellant Division to the Piccolo Line Company, for the deduction of inputs from the tax appeal from the invoices of Sevilla in the years 1999-2000. The state does not claim that there was no transaction between Sevilla and Piccolo-Line, but explicitly states in the assessment notice that Sevilla sold electrical products to Piccolo-Line. The only argument that arose in this context is that there is a defect in the issuance of invoices by Sevilla, a defect that does not affect the validity of the transaction.
On the other hand, the state argues in this trial that the Sevilla accounts do not represent a real transaction, and that this is a duplication that should not be accepted.
As to the claim that the six checks of Piccolo Lane that were drawn to the Sevilla order were cashed by or through Defendant 5, it was argued that there is not the slightest evidence for this claim. In this regard, it was argued that defendant 5 had no possibility of cashing the checks, because he was abroad at the time that he showed up at the bank and withdrew the money.
Defendant 5 claimed that the signature on the check was not his signature, and from the testimony of the forensic expert the possibility arises that it is indeed a signature that is not the signature of defendant 5.
As for another claim by the prosecution, according to which four checks of the Piccolo Line company that were drawn to the Sevilla order were not presented for payment, this is a thesis that has no basis in evidence. The statements of account presented by the prosecution do not cover the entire year 2000 and therefore, no factual basis was laid for the claim, since there is a possibility that the payment of the checks appears in the missing statements of account.