Although defendant 1 was not charged with the offense of fraud in the framework of this indictment, the prosecution seeks to convict him of the offense of fraudulent receipt, by virtue of the court's authority under section 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the defendant was given the full opportunity to defend himself against the danger of conviction for this offense.
The alleged fraud concerns a document posing to be a proforma account of the supplier TriStar Electronics Pte. Ltd, Singapore.
This is document 3876 B/143, which is made in the format of the forged accounts, which were attached to all the import records that are the subject of the indictment.
The purpose of the forgery was clarified in the testimony of Alon Granot, and according to him, he carried out all the actions in the account, including receiving approval from Mizrahi Bank to transfer an advance in the amount of $3,000 to the supplier, at the request of defendant 1, as part of the repayment of his debts to this defendant.
Thus, according to the prosecution's approach, the basis of the intention to receive anything by means of the forged document was laid, and after the transfer of the foreign currency abroad, the element of receipt was proven.
The element of fraud was proven, in the fact that the proforma account was false and forged, and by proving the submission of the account and the request to transfer the money, according to it.
In light of the aforesaid, the prosecution seeks to convict the defendant also of the offense of fraudulent receipt, even though, as stated, this offense was not attributed to defendant 1, in the first place.
In summary, the prosecution seeks to convict defendant 1 of committing six offenses of forgery of a document with the intention of obtaining something through it under aggravated circumstances, six offenses of using a forged document and six offenses of violating the Customs Ordinance. This is so far as the forgery of the supplier's accounts and their use relates to them.