With regard to the prosecution's claim that Haim Zaruk is in fact Kobi Zoaretz, it was argued by Defendant 6 that Kobi Zoaretz was not the person presented to him as Haim Zoaretz, and that Defendant 1 could have presented him as any other person as Haim Zoaretz. When it was proven that defendant 1 had purchased the Danidov and Sevilla companies from Kobi Zoaretz and made use of Plan's forged invoices: "It is not surprising that he also deceived Fadlon regarding the identity of the person standing before him and who claims to be Haim Zaruk, the owner of Sevilla."
Defendant 6 confirms that he came to release the imported Opsa products, using a power of attorney from the Danidov company, which was given to him by defendant 1. Adv. Rappaport argues that this does not indicate that defendant 6 was part of the conspiracy.
With regard to the involvement of OPCI, it was argued by Adv. Rappaport that defendant 6 did not know or was involved in decisions regarding the identity of the importing companies, and did not know the secret of the considerations of defendant 1 and/or defendant 5 in importing the goods, through these companies. Just as the prosecution believed that defendant 4, Avi Kalamaro, was not responsible for the criminal acts alleged in the eighth charge, so should the approach be applied to defendant 6 as well. This defendant did not know that these were false import lists, and he certainly did not have a hand in creating them. Since defendant 6 did not know that these were forged invoices from the Plans company, he should not be attributed to the delivery of forged invoices to the customs brokers. In addition, no offense should be attributed to him in the very act of ordering the goods, without knowing about the involvement of shell companies and the use of forged import receipts.
As to the claim that defendant 6 had written checks to the order of the Savilla company that were not presented for payment at all, it was argued that the defendant had no knowledge whether the aforementioned checks were presented for repayment, since he was neither a manager of the company nor its controlling shareholder. It was further claimed that at least some of the checks were paid and that the sums recorded in the Sevilla Ordinance were indeed deducted from the "Piccolo Line" company (Piccolo Line's account statements S/179 and S/170). The accounts of "Piccolo Lane" were not continuously checked throughout 2000 and even in 2001, and therefore it is not possible to prove the claim that the checks in favor of Sevilla were not paid. The very fact that the amount of the checks that the prosecution claims were not paid is not identical to the amount of tax that was concealed, is sufficient to undermine the claim that the defendants derived criminal profit that was accumulated due to the omission of taxes.