The indictment also claimed that defendant 1 acted to release the container, even though he knew that the bank would not honor the letter of credit, without having any intention of paying for the goods.
Since the bill of lading was prima facie in good condition, Transor requested in a tax appeal the approval of the ship's agent, Carmel Shipping Services Ltd., to release the container, and subsequently a rate certificate was issued by the ship's agent on March 24, 1999.
On March 22, 1999, defendant 1 submitted to the Customs Authority an entry permit for the release of the aforementioned container, in the name of the Schloss company and through the customs broker. The defendant, through the customs broker, attached to the register a document pretending to be a sales account in the amount of $67,232, from Contel Investments Limited of London, which was supposed to be the supplier of the goods, while according to the bill of lading, a company with a similar name served as the importer of the goods. The prosecution claims that the aforementioned account of the sale, as well as the list that was drawn up according to it, are false. The accuser further claims that defendant 1 forged the sales account, with the aim of using it for the purpose of defrauding the customs and in order to disguise the fact that he took the goods illegally. It was further claimed that the goods were not purchased from Contel Investments Limited, but were supplied from the supplier, Regent, and the importer according to the bill of lading was Contel Ltd..
The prosecution claims that on April 5, 1999 and May 26, 1999, defendant 1 submitted to the Customs Authority two additional false records, to which copies of sales accounts were attached, which were also false. Here, too, the defendant refused to make the letter of credit operational and to remove various reservations, and informed the opening bank through Lantex of his refusal to receive the documents, and ordered that they be returned, including the bill of lading, to the informing bank. The defendant did so, even though a copy of the original bill of lading had already been used to release the goods from the transport company and the customs authorities.