The indictment alleges that the acts of forgery and fraud detailed in Charges 1 and 2 were carried out under aggravated circumstances, and that these circumstances are rooted in the sophistication, scope and dimensions of the acts of forgery and fraud, as well as the fact that they are the result of a planned, systematic and prolonged effort.
Charge No. 1
- Charge No. 1 is attributed to Defendants 1 and 2, and the following offenses are attributed to these defendants (in this framework, the responsibility of defendant 2 for the commission of the offenses will not be discussed, and a separate verdict will be given in his case):
- Forgery of a document under aggravated circumstances, according to Article 418 of the Penal Law, 5737-1977, (hereinafter: "Penal Law").
- Use of a forged document in aggravated circumstances, according to Article 420 to the Penal Law (Defendant 1 has five offenses and Defendant 2 has two offenses).
III. Fraudulent receipt under aggravated circumstances, according to Article 415 to the Penal Law.
- Receiving something by subterfuge, according to Article 416 to the Penal Law.
- Theft, by Article 383 to the Penal Law (Defendant 1 has five offenses and Defendant 2 has four offenses).
- Preparation, transfer and presentation of a sales account that is supposedly real and in fact is not, according to Section 212(a)(3) Together with Article 218 to the Customs Ordinance (hereinafter: "The Customs Ordinance") (Defendant 1 has five offenses and Defendant 2 has two offenses).
VII. Submission of a false listing, according to Section 212(a)4 Together with Article 218 to the Customs Ordinance (Defendant 1 has five offenses, Defendant 2 has two offenses).
VIII. Misleading a customs official in a particular detail that may impair the performance of a function, according to Section 212(a)6 Together with Article 218 to the Customs Ordinance (Defendant 1 has five offenses, Defendant 2 has two offenses).
- Providing incorrect or inaccurate information without a reasonable explanation, according to Section 117(a)3 of the Value Added Tax Law, 5736-1976 (hereinafter: "VAT Law") (Defendant 1 has five offenses and Defendant 2 has two offenses).
In the factual part of the first indictment, it was claimed that at the beginning of 1999, defendant 1 decided to defraud a supplier of goods, by opening a letter of credit in favor of the supplier, when according to the plan, the opening bank would not honor the letter of credit, and in this way defendant 1 would be able to receive the goods illegally without paying for them at all.