Defendant 1 claims that "as he has extensive experience in the field of international trade, he has often encountered orders that were 'stuck' with goods they ordered, whether due to changes in the market, oversupply, or delays in the arrival of the goods that caused customers to regret it or any other reason."
In such cases, various buyers of goods approached defendant 1, requesting that he assist them in locating a company that would be interested in purchasing and adopting their rights in the order, and this was the case in some of the transactions discussed in charges 9-14. When it comes to adopting a transaction, the adoptive company becomes the supplier of the goods, and therefore it issues a supplier account that reflects the value of the goods at the time of sale.
With regard to the prosecution's argument that defendant 1 did not raise this version in the course of his interrogations at customs, it was argued, once again, that no weight should be attributed to the defendant's statements, due to the exceptional circumstances in which the investigation was conducted and the violation of his constitutional rights. In the circumstances in which the defendant found himself during the interrogation, he gave in to the pressure of the interrogators and confirmed that it was allegedly a forgery, which is not true.
Defendant 1 claims that the sales accounts submitted to the customs authorities reflect the value of the goods in accordance with the real commercial transaction between the seller and the buyer (the adopter and the importer), in the same transaction and in accordance with the price agreed upon between them, and they are not forged.
It was further argued that there is no logic in deliberate action to illegally reduce the tax payments, since defendant 1 would never have ordered the goods, was not the owner of the goods and was not supposed to bear the payment of the release taxes, and therefore could not have made any profit from the illegal reduction of the amount of taxes.