In accordance with the defense mechanism designed by defendant 1, it was determined that the documents would be registered in the name of MRLD, and only after Bekir transferred the payment to Lantex, would MRLD transfer the documents to Bekiar, in a manner that would give him control over the goods. However, in the end, it was decided not to take advantage of this protection mechanism, and it was agreed that Lantex would receive a commission of 11%, which is a relatively high fee, since "it is a very complex credit that involves high risk."
In contrast to the transaction described in indictment 9, for the transaction that is the subject of the tenth indictment, Bikir had collateral provided by Magnum, and therefore there was no need for a mechanism of a trustee such as MRLD.
Defendant 1 claims that Bekir wanted the goods he ordered to be released by an Israeli company known to customs, in order to simplify and streamline the clearance process. To this end, he tried to locate a company that would provide him with clearance services as an importer. Therefore, in the two transactions in question, Bekir contacted Shlomo Metuk and Defendant 1, who connected him to Schloss, which provided release services in exchange for a commission. In order to realize the possibility of releasing the goods by Schloss, it was agreed that Schloss would be recorded as informed in the bills of lading, in order to enable it to release the goods by conversion only.
As to the claim that defendant 1 used the name of Contel in order to falsify sales accounts in the ninth indictment, it was claimed that the foreign Contel company was owned by Haim Buchris, and he made no claim regarding defendant 1's control of this company. The defendant claims that no evidence was presented that these were forged sales accounts, and that the misspelling of the street name on the bills does not make them fake.
With regard to the tenth charge, the prosecution claimed that defendant 1 used the name of the Storla company in order to forge the sales account that was submitted in the framework of this indictment. The defense argues that the prosecution did not present any evidence linking defendant 1 to the Storla company or its sales accounts, and did not prove that it was a non-existent company or a straw company. In addition, it was not proven by the prosecution that this was a fake sales account.