As stated by Dr. Aharon Namdar in his book, Tax Law (Hoshen LeMishpat, 5754-1994) regarding the responsibility imposed on the corporation's managers and those responsible for its operation:
"Although the section includes a long list of officials who can be charged with an offense committed by the corporation, this should only be done when the aforementioned officials are part of the organizational structure of the corporation and bear responsibility for making decisions related to the commission of the offense" (ibid., at p. 492).
If the test proposed by the prosecution is accepted, an excessively heavy burden will be imposed on many parties, whose role is limited to providing services to corporations, and I do not believe that this is the trend of case law, and that this is the desired law.
In summary, I am of the opinion that defendant 5 should be acquitted of all the offenses attributed to him in the scope of the eighth charge, due to doubt.
Charges 9 - 14
Charge No. 9
- In the indictment, the prosecution included an introductory chapter to Charges 9-14, in which it claimed that Defendant 1 had decided to defraud the Customs Authority by reducing import taxes. This was done by forging sales accounts and presenting false sales accounts to the tax authorities, according to which the prices were up to a third lower than the real cost of the goods.
The prosecution claims that the acts detailed in these charges were carried out with the aim of fraudulently and under aggravated circumstances from paying import taxes. The aggravating circumstances lie in the sophistication of the offenses, the scope and dimensions of the acts of forgery and fraud, as well as the fact that they are the result of a planned, systematic and protracted effort, and due to the large number of charges and amounts of tax evasion. The amounts of import tax evasion are estimated as of the date the goods are stored and do not include fines and arrears interest.
As part of Charges 9-14, the following offenses were attributed to Defendant 1:
- Forgery of a document with the intention of obtaining something through it under aggravated circumstances, according to Section 418 of the Penal Law (6 offenses).
- Use of a forged document under aggravated circumstances, under section 420 of the Penal Law (52 offenses).
- Fraudulent receipt under aggravated circumstances, according to Section 415 of the Penal Law (52 offenses).
- Evasion of customs duties to be paid, according to section 212(a)1 together with section 218 of the Customs Ordinance (6 offenses).
- Preparation, transfer and presentation of a sales account that is supposedly true and in fact is not, in accordance with section 212(a)3 together with section 218 of the Customs Ordinance (52 offenses).
- Submission of a false registration, in accordance with section 212(a)4 together with section 218 of the Customs Ordinance (52 offenses).
- Misleading a customs officer in a particular detail that may impair the performance of his duties, according to section 212(a)6 together with section 218 of the Customs Ordinance (52 offenses).
Providing false information or a false document, in an important detail, in accordance with Section 22(a)(1) of the Purchase Tax Law (6 offenses).
- Taking an act in order to evade payment of purchase tax, according to section 22(a)5 of the Purchase Tax Law (52 offenses).
- Providing false information or report with the aim of tax evasion in aggravated circumstances, under section 117(b)1 + (b2)2-3 of the Tax Appeal Law (52 offenses).
- Issuing a tax invoice or a document posing as a tax invoice, without making or undertaking to make a transaction in respect of which the said invoice or document was issued, under aggravated circumstances, in accordance with section 117(b)3+(b2) 2-3 of the Tax Appeal Law (52 offenses).
- The use of any fraud or trick or the permission of another to use them or to perform any other act, with the aim of evading or evading tax under aggravated circumstances, in accordance with Section 117(b)8 + (B2)2-3 of the Tax Appeal Law (52 offenses).
In the ninth indictment, it was alleged that on April 11, 1999, defendant 1 submitted to the Customs Authority, on behalf of Schloss, and through the customs broker Mantfield, a receipt for the import of goods into Israel, such as DVDs and radiotapes. According to the list, the value of the goods is $31,688, and attached to it is a document that is supposed to be a sales account from London-based Contel Investments Limited, which is expected to be the supplier of the goods.