The prosecution further claims that after the containers were released, they were transported on the orders of defendants 1 and 2 and with their knowledge to the warehouse of "Okeanos Company Ltd" in Kibbutz Yakum, and were kept there for sale through a person named Shlomo Metuk. In their actions, the prosecution claims, defendants 1 and 2 stole four containers, which they kept in a warehouse under their control, all while using forged documents. Regarding some of the acts, the prosecution claims that defendants 1 and 2 committed them, with each other's knowledge, and therefore they should be viewed as joint perpetrators.
The prosecution's arguments regarding the first charge
- The prosecution is of the opinion that the responsibility of defendant 1 for committing all the offenses that are the subject of the first indictment has been proven, since he was the one who drafted the letter of credit and he was the one who was in direct contact with the bank, as appears from the records on the bank document, and from the testimony of Aharon Calderon and Ms. Tal Rimon of Bank Leumi. According to the prosecution, defendant 1 promised Calderón that he would not be exposed to the payment of the amount stated in the letter of credit, since his expertise in drafting the letters of credit would ensure in advance that the documents presented by the beneficiary would contain reservations. This arises from the testimony of Aharon Calderon, and from the testimony of Haim Buchris, who was not required to pay money in advance for the letter of credit. Defendant 1 was the only one who was in contact with Transdor, whether by himself or through the Mentfield Company. He received the original bill of lading from her for the purpose of releasing the first container, and facsimile received copies of the bills of lading bearing the other four containers, according to which the bills of exchange were forged. This can be learned from the testimony of Transdor's CEO, Doron Kasher, and from documents that were prepared in real time. Defendant 1 contacted the customs broker from Mentfield, handed over the documents for the release of the goods, including a fake supplier's account, and used them to release the first container, in the name of the shell company. This is based on the testimonies of Mentfield employees and real-time documents. Defendant 1 informed Bank Leumi, either by himself or through the bank's customer, Calderon, that he was not aware of the release of the goods, according to the bank documents and Calderon's testimony. He was the one who sold the contents of the first container, using the invoices of the straw company Merig Import and Marketing Ltd., through Shlomo Metuk, and received the sales proceeds from him. This is according to Shlomo Sweet's testimony and his statements to the police. Defendant 2, Yehoshua Shlosh, released the four additional containers for defendant 1, using forged gate certificates and through customs broker Yosef Bashi. This was according to Shlosh himself in a conversation that took place between him and Defendant 3, Araldo Frizzi, which the latter recorded. Defendant 1 was the one who stored the goods in the warehouse of the Bail Okeanos, according to three statements in a conversation between him and Defendant 3. He was the one who paid for the storage of the goods in the Oceanus warehouse, according to the testimony of Shlomo Sweet and according to the confession of defendant 1 himself. Defendant 1 was the one who sold the contents of the four containers through Shlomo Metuk, using the invoices of the Straw Company from Rig and received the sales receipts. This is according to the testimony of Shlomo Metuk in his statements to the police, and according to documents from the bail warehouse file. The defendant also instructed Bank Leumi not to remove the reservations and to return the documents received abroad, even though he released the goods, and despite the fact that the supplier offered a discount of 40%, according to the bank's documents and Calderon's testimony. He is the one responsible for forging the supplier's accounts, which are prepared in the same format as the Planas accounts, which, according to the prosecution, defendant 1 admitted to forging.
The first stage of the fraudulent act is attributed to the opening of the letter of credit, while presenting false representations, according to which the orders were made in the name of a legitimate commercial company. According to the prosecution, this is a misrepresentation, since the companies in question are shell companies, and this was known to defendant 1. The defendant concealed from the doubt the fact that these were shell companies, devoid of owners with an affiliation, address, assets and businesses, knowing that no doubter would have agreed to send the goods to a dispatcher, which is a name devoid of any content, and is not a legitimate commercial company. The manner in which the letter of credit was opened shows that defendant 1 intended in advance and even planned to take the goods without paying for them, thus proving a basic condition of the offense of fraud. Therefore, the prosecution claims, defendant 1 fraudulently received something even before taking the goods, and what he received fraudulently was "the supplier's assumption and willingness to send the goods to Israel, according to the false representations, that the ordering party is a real business entity that intends to pay for the goods, when in fact he would have ordered a straw company and the initial intention was to take the goods without paying".