Moreover, despite the evidence presented by the prosecution in order to prove its claim that defendant 5 is an active manager of Piccolo Line Ltd., I am not persuaded that this is indeed the case.
The connections between Defendant 5 and the Piccolo Line Company in the tax appeal are numerous and branched, but do not necessarily deviate from what was defined by Defendant 5 as the provision of office services, assistance in financing and the granting of permission for the import and distribution of Opsa products in Israel.
I do not believe that the prosecution's argument that defendant 6 was an employee of the company, who earned relatively small sums of money, while according to defendant 6's version, he was the one who managed the company and handled its business, while the payment to defendant 5 was given for the services he provided to the company.
As stated, I have reached the conclusion that it would not be safe to determine the factual findings in accordance with the prosecution's version, even though they may give rise to great suspicion, and I am of the opinion that defendant 5 should be allowed to benefit from the doubt, in this context.
Similar things can be said with regard to the prosecution's alternative application, according to which defendant 5 should be regarded as an active manager of Piccolo Line Ltd., despite the fact that he is not an officer of that company.
In my opinion, it is not possible to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant 5 was an active manager, in the sense that the Piccolo-Line company in the tax appeal was under his actual control, and that he took an active part in the management of the company.
I do not accept the argument that "it is sufficient for the fact that Wegman provided Piccolo-Line with management services, including import management and management of the financial and banking side... In order to force the conclusion that he is an active manager."
I am of the opinion that this is an overly broad test, and a person who provides such and such services to any corporation should not be seen as an active manager of that corporation.