As to the issue of the letter of credit, the prosecution claims that this letter was drafted by defendant 1 with the intention of failing the supplier, by introducing various reservations, in order to enable the goods to be taken without paying for them.
The prosecution agrees that in a significant part of the letters of credit opened by the banks in the relevant years, discrepancies were discovered in the documents, which lead to reservations. However, in the vast majority of cases, the importers remove the reservations, so that it will be possible to properly utilize the letters of credit and release the goods, which was not done in this case.
In this regard, the prosecution relies on the testimony of Aharon Calderon, who according to him knew of the intention that the letters of credit, which are the subject of charges 1 and 2, would not be honored, due to the various reservations. This witness stated that he agreed to open the letters of credit without collateral only after he was assured that there would be reservations to the documents, and in this way he would not be obligated to pay the sums relating to those letters of credit. According to the prosecution, Calderon's testimony was not eroded in his cross-examination and deserves full confidence, and it and the letters of credit themselves are sufficient to obligate the conviction of defendant 1 of the fraudulent offenses.
Further support for the claim that the letter of credit, which is the subject of indictment 1, was opened, and the goods were ordered without any intention to pay for them, the prosecution finds in the fact that the orderer of the goods from defendant 1, Haim Buchris, was in bankruptcy proceedings and was not required to provide collateral against the opening of the letter of credit, but rather to pay for the goods only after they were sold to customers in Israel.
The prosecution further argues that the version of defendant 1, according to which Buchris was supposed to pay the sum in advance and in cash, is a suppressed version that came up only during the trial, and in any event, it was not presented to the prosecution witnesses Calderon and Buchris during their testimony at the trial. The explanation for the fact that Buchris did not contradict the version of defendant 1 is rooted, in the prosecution's opinion, in the fact that Buchris was bankrupt, and if he had been presented with this version, he would have rejected it outright. Buchris's version, according to which he was supposed to pay only after the goods were sold, is supported by the testimony of Shlomo Matuk, who heard the words from Buchris and from defendant 1, at the time of the events.