When he asked defendant 1 who was the entity from which he was supposed to purchase the goods, he replied that it was a Sevilla company, which belonged to a man named Haim Zaruk.
According to Defendant 6, he met the person who was presented to him as a discarded life, only once, and after that, all the contacts relating to the Sevilla company were held with Defendant 1.
Defendant 6 knew that the registered importer of the goods was the Danidov Company, as this appeared in the documents he provided to the customs agents. He also knew that the supplier's accounts had been issued by the Belgian company PLANAS , and that he had also transferred them to the customs brokers.
When defendant 6 was asked to address the fact that the value of the goods in the supplier's accounts of PLANAS was up to a third lower than the real value, he initially refused to comment, saying, "Due to the complexity of the question, I do not wish to answer it for fear that I will get into trouble." This question was posed once again to Defendant 6, and he replied as follows: "I saw the low prices, but it didn't interest me and it didn't seem to me that anything was not kosher. I was more interested in the merchandise coming to me so that I wouldn't be harmed by the fact that there is a parallel merchandise to mine in the market."
Counsel for Defendant 6, Adv. Alon Rappaport, claimed that his client was deceived by Defendant 1, without being involved in any matter, in the fraudulent scheme to defraud the tax authorities.
According to Adv. Rappaport, the prosecution's evidence is based on weak circumstantial evidence, from which it is not possible to reach a convincing conclusion regarding the defendant's criminal involvement.
The defendant does not dispute that he released the goods, which are the subject of the eighth indictment, using supplier accounts of the company PLANAS, in which the cost of the goods is greatly reduced from the real cost, when the importer is, as it were, the Danidov company. However, it was argued, this defendant had nothing to do with the preparation of the forged supplier accounts, and he was not connected to the operation of the Danidov or Sevilla companies, when defendant 6 had no reason to suspect defendant 1 and his actions, and he certainly did not imagine that he was presented with a person named Haim Zaruk, who is not connected to the Danidov and Savilla companies. The power of attorney on behalf of Danidov was received by Defendant 6 from Defendant 1, and he knew nothing about OPCI's involvement in the import transactions.