The defense argues that there is no logic in the claim that defendant 5 participated in fraudulent acts, in light of the nature and scope of his business, and the profits from them. All of Defendant 5's business is reported and supervised on an ongoing basis due to his being a provider of currency services, and participation in any fraud means the revocation of his license and the liquidation of his business. Even if Defendant 5 could have received approximately NIS 150,000 (NIS 150,000) after dividing the spoils between the partners, there was no logic in the defendant's participation in the fraudulent acts, when he was endangering businesses worth tens of millions of shekels.
Defendant 5 completely rejects the prosecution's claim that he bound himself to Uri Resch's version. This argument is unfounded, since the version of defendant 5 is an independent version that has nothing to do with the testimony of defendant 1, regarding the question of the relationship between him and the companies involved.
In his summaries, defendant 5 referred to the establishment of two companies, one under the name "Piccolo Line Marketing" and the other under the name "Piccolo Line Trade". According to the prosecution, the two companies show about the business activity of defendant 5, regarding the import of products from Opsa and their marketing in Israel from the offices of defendants 5 and 6.
According to defendant 5, the factual data do not prove what is claimed by the prosecution. "Piccolo Line Trading" was established in October 2001 and its shares were transferred to a person named Shabtai Kaufman. At some point, after July 2002, Kaufman transferred all the shares to defendant 5. Therefore, there is no truth in the prosecution's claim that defendant 5 established "Piccolo Line Trade" and handed it over to Kaufman.
As for "Piccolo Line Marketing", this company was established in February 2001 and all of its shares were held by Kirocell. In July 2001, half of the shares were transferred to Kaufman, and a year later Kaufman received all of the company's shares. From this it emerges that there is no basis for the prosecution's claim that Kaufman returned the shares of "Piccolo Line Marketing" to defendant 5. This sequence of events does not indicate that Defendant 5 had any control of the "Piccolo Line Ltd.", which had been established about five years earlier by Defendant 6, Yigal Fadlon, and by Mario Weissman.