This confirms the claim that there was a connection between Defendant 1 and MRLD, despite Defendant 1's denial in court.
The main corporation used in the framework of the 9-14 indictment group is Schloss.
In all the cases mentioned in these charges, the goods were released through the Schloss company, and according to Defendant 1, it is a company that belongs, operates and is managed by Elhanan Tenenbaum.
This is the place, then, to relate to Schloss and the elements behind it.
There is no dispute that this company was established by Mrs. Ramonda Fischer and Naturafil Medic Center Bat Yam Ltd., on June 30, 1998, as is evident from the company's registration documents and the opening of the file in the tax appeal (P/203).
Ms. Fischer said in her testimony in court that the company was established at the request of Elhanan Tenenbaum, but that she herself did not carry out business in this framework and did not make business use of the company.
Schloss had no income, other than NIS 10,000 received through Elhanan Tenenbaum, and indeed a perusal of Schloss's bank account reveals that there was no movement in it, and there is no dispute that Schloss's activity was limited to the areas of submitting import receipts, issuing invoices, etc.
It also emerges from the reports submitted by Schloss that according to its reports, the company was not obligated to pay VAT, since the amounts of the appellant's taxes collected by it were offset by the input tax paid by it.
The main question, which needs to be decided, is who was the party behind Schloss and carried out the company's extensive activity, with regard to the submission of import licenses and tax invoices?
As may be recalled, defendant 1 claimed in his statement (P/321) that the words were made by Elchanan Tenenbaum and for his purposes, but as I noted above, this version must be rejected, outright.
On the basis of the evidence presented to me, the summary of which will be detailed below, I determine that defendant 1, and he alone, made use of Schloss, insofar as it relates to the submission of import records, dealing with customs brokers and releasing goods, by means of forged supplier accounts and reduced costs. In this regard, there is no real dispute that Schloss was not an importer of the goods, nor was it the one who ordered them from the supplier, and therefore its presentation in this manner is nothing more than a false and false representation.