As part of the testimony, the name of another party, Ms. Nicole Thierry was mentioned, who, according to Duka, was behind the company PSI, which operated PLANAS. Since Ms. Thierry passed away, it was not possible, of course, for her to testify in Israel, and needless to say, it was not possible to submit any documents through her.
Since there is no dispute that PLANAS belongs to defendant 3, the question arose as to whether that person has a power of attorney to act on behalf of the company. The witness confirmed that he had never seen such a power of attorney, and did not know how to point to a source of authority to act on behalf of the company.
According to Lu Duka, his company had provided financial management and transaction adoption services for PLANAS, but he did not know how to pour any real content into the activity done for PLANAS.
I do not see the need to refer at length to Le Duque's testimony, which was embarrassing, if not delusional.
I do not give any credence to the testimony of Le Duque, and in particular what is said about his claim that he presented himself to Defendant 1 as Christian Roger, and I do not believe that he carried out legitimate actions in relation to PLANAS.
From my acquaintance with the exploits of defendant 1, I do not consider myself surprised by his ability to summon a false witness to the court, who gave false testimony, devoid of any basic credibility, regarding the witness's relationship with PLANAS, and with defendant 1 himself.
A superficial examination of Le Duque's testimony clearly shows that this was a false witness who appeared in court in order to strengthen the version of defendant 1, while what he said had nothing to do with reality.
Even the raising of the name of Mrs. Nicole Thiery, who passed away, does not save Defendant 1, since no connection has been proven between her and the PLANAS company and that mysterious Duka, and needless to say, no evidence, or even a shred of document, was presented to support the version given in court.