According to the prosecution's approach, the order for the goods was made by Piccolo Line Ltd., and not by OPCI, and from the correspondence with Opsa it is clear that the importer is Piccolo Line in a tax appeal and not any other party, and therefore the version of the "parallel import" that was raised by both defendant 6 and defendant 5 should not be accepted.
As stated, the prosecution claims that all the orders from Opsa, without exception, were made by the Piccolo Line company in a tax appeal and not by any other party that is not connected to defendant 5 or to the Kyrosel company, which operated on his behalf.
The prosecution further claimed that as far as Opsa is concerned, the ordering company is a company in a tax appeal and not a third party, such as OPCI, and "it considers the orders that are the subject of the indictment to be 8 regular orders of Piccolo-Line Ltd."
Opsa even sent the release documents of the goods described in Charge 8 directly to Piccolo Line Ltd., and not to OPCI, and this too is evidence that these are orders from Piccolo Line Ltd.
Another claim made by the prosecution is that Piccolo Line Ltd. is a business arm of defendant 5, and was not a customer who receives office services and financing from him, without having a direct connection to the business of this company.
The prosecution claims that it was able to "prove that Wegman managed Piccolo Line's business, drove Piccolo Line like an actual owner and withdrew most of its income from it, while leaving the registered owner, Yigal Fadlon, a basic salary, like an employee in a non-senior position."
In order to prove this claim, the prosecution pointed to the fact that Piccolo Line Ltd., operating from the office of defendant 5, that this defendant was the main correspondent in the extensive correspondence between Ofsa and Piccolo Line Ltd., that he was authorized to sign the company's bank account, and that Piccolo Line's address in the tax appeal was the residential address of defendant 5.