As mentioned, the supplier is not PLANAS, but Tristar from Singapore, with the actual cost of the goods being $39,571 .
There is no dispute that it was the buyer, Mickey Aharon, who submitted the documents to his customs broker, Albania, through whom the import records were submitted on behalf of Schloss.
Despite this, the prosecution claims that the person who is criminally responsible for the submission of the false registers, which are based on the fake PLANAS account, is none other than defendant 1, whether as a joint perpetrator or as an executor through another.
In this regard, the prosecution claimed that all the false and forged supplier accounts that were supposedly issued by PLANAS were prepared by defendant 1, with the clear aim of reducing the required import taxes.
This was done by defendant 1 in other cases as well as in this case, when the matter also applies to the presentation of Schloss as a person connected to the import transaction, which does not correspond to reality.
Even if Mickey Aharon had any knowledge regarding the submission of the false documents to the customs broker, who handled the release of the goods, the prosecution claims that the economic interest, at least in large part, was that of Defendant 1, and not of Mickey Aharon.
As the evidence shows, Miki Aharon paid NIS 320,404 for the goods that are the subject of the eleventh indictment (stereo and radiotape systems).
The real cost of importing is NIS 341,021, while the cost according to the fake supplier's account (plus sea freight and customs brokerage expenses) is NIS 256,890.
Therefore, according to the prosecution, it follows: "Out of the difference between the real cost and the reduced cost due to the fraud, in the amount of NIS 84,131, Uri Resch left in his hands most of the profit, in the amount of NIS 63,514. The buyer enjoys a discount of only NIS 20,617, at the rate of 6% of the actual cost of the goods" (p. 285 of the summaries of the claim).
It follows from this that even if the buyer, Mickey Aharon, made any profit or was an accomplice to the fraudulent acts, it clearly appears that defendant 1 made most of the profit, by evading the payment of import taxes in the amount of NIS 40,167.