As I have determined with respect to defendant 1, I acquit defendant 6 of committing the offense of misleading a customs official in a certain particular, under section 212(a)6 together with section 218 of the Customs Ordinance.
Due to the reduction of the required purchase tax, I convict defendant 6 of six offenses of providing false information or a false document, in an important detail, under section 22(a)1 of the Purchase Tax Law (Goods and Services); and six offenses of doing an act in order to evade payment of purchase tax, under section 22(a)5 of the Purchase Tax Law.
For the reduction of the appellant's payments from the obligatory taxes, I convict defendant 6 of six offenses of providing false information or report with the aim of evading tax, under aggravated circumstances, under section 117(b)(1) together with section (b2) of the VAT Law.
The aggravating circumstances are anchored in the provisions of sections 117 (b2), 2 and 3 of the VAT Law.
There is no dispute that Piccolo-Line in a tax appeal deducted input tax, on the basis of invoices issued to it by Sevilla. Since the tax invoices of the Sevilla company are false invoices, which do not reflect a real transaction, the reports made to the tax appellant and the entries in the books of the Piccolo Line in the tax appeal are false. Therefore, defendant 6, the owner of Piccolo Line Ltd., should be convicted of committing the offense of preparing, managing or authorizing another to prepare or manage false ledgers or other false records, under aggravated circumstances, under section 117(b)6 together with section (b2) of the VAT Law.
The aggravating circumstances are described in sections 117(b2), 2 and 3 of the VAT Law.
And from here to the case of Defendant 5, Roberto Wagman.
In its summaries, the prosecution presented a plethora of evidence that shows, according to it, that defendant 5 was a partner in the fraudulent scheme intended to defraud the tax authorities, and that the matter was done on his own accord. Mainly, according to the prosecution, defendant 5 has a strong connection to Piccolo Line Ltd., even if he is not formally a shareholder in this company, which is managed by defendant 6, Yigal Fadlon.