As to the claim regarding the filing of false VAT records, Adv. Rappaport reiterates the claim that the defendant was not aware that these were false registrations and straw companies. In any event, the obligation to report applies to Piccolo Line, which is an independent legal entity, and does not apply to the defendant by virtue of being an officer of this company. Since no indictment has been filed against Piccolo Line, it is not possible to blame only the officer.
In order to demonstrate the illogic of defendant 6's involvement in the fraudulent acts, Adv. Rappaport noted that if the defendant had known that these were forged invoices and the use of shell companies, it is reasonable to assume that he would not have left the goods under the name of Danidov in the guarantee warehouses, as goods exempt from any tax liability. Had these been criminal acts, as claimed by the company, the defendant would have taken care to take out the goods and conceal them, and not to leave them exposed to the seizure of the tax authorities, as was indeed done in practice.
Even if defendant 6 noticed the reduced prices appearing in the balance invoices, this does not indicate the existence of a criminal intent necessary to commit the offense. Defendant 6 saw the sums appearing on the Plan invoices, but this did not interest him, since he himself did not carry out the import, and did not take care of the documents being produced from the Plan company. Attorney Rappaport argues that: "Since the accuser failed to prove Fadlon's mental element, it is not possible to attribute to him the joint commission of the offenses described in the indictment." Attorney Rappaport further argued that: "The fact that the declared price was lower than the price that was previously known to Fadlon as the price paid by Piccolo Line Lapse, does not constitute evidence that Fadlon knew that it was a forged document or was aware that it was a forged document while committing all the other offenses attributed to Fadlon."