I see no reason to convict the defendant of six additional offenses, which concern misleading a customs officer in a particular detail that may impair the performance of his duties, under section 212(a)6 together with section 218 of the Customs Ordinance, and I acquit the defendant of committing these offenses.
For evading payment of the full amount of the customs due, I convict the defendant of six offenses of evasion of customs duty to be paid, under section 212(a)1 together with section 218 of the Customs Ordinance.
Defendant 1 will be convicted of six offenses of fraudulent receipt, under aggravated circumstances, under Section 415 of the Penal Law.
The aggravating circumstances lie in the sophistication of the offense, its scope, the financial significance of its commission, and the fact that it involves the commission of additional offenses.
In addition, defendant 1 will be convicted of six offenses of providing false information or a false document in an important detail, under section 22(a)1 of the Purchase Tax Law, and six offenses of doing an act in order to evade payment of purchase tax, under section 22(a)5 of the Purchase Tax Law.
I do not believe that a sufficient factual basis has been laid according to which Defendant 1 can be convicted of six additional offenses, which concern the provision of incorrect or inaccurate information without a reasonable explanation, under section 117(a)3 of the VAT Law, and I acquit the defendant, due to doubt, of these offenses.
Charge No. 15
- In the introductory part of Charges 15 and 16 of the indictment, it is alleged that tax invoices were used "for the purpose of creating an accounting backup for the fraudulent businesses and for the purpose of selling the goods to customers." For this purpose, fictitious invoices of various corporations were used as described in Charges 15 - 17. The acts were committed with the intention of evading tax payments, under aggravated circumstances due to the large number of charges and tax evasion.
The 15th charge is attributed to Defendant 1 and includes the following offenses:
- Failure to maintain books of accounts, in accordance with section 117(a)7 of the VAT Law.
- Providing false information or report, with the aim of evading or evading tax in aggravated circumstances, in accordance with section 117(b)1 + (b2)2-3 of the VAT Law.
- Issuing a tax invoice or a document posing as a tax invoice, without making or undertaking to make a transaction in respect of which the said invoice or document was issued, with the aim of evading or evading tax under aggravated circumstances, in accordance with section 117(b)3+(b2) 2-3 of the Tax Appeal Law (15 offenses).
- Deduction of input tax without having a document, as stated in section 38, in aggravated circumstances, in accordance with section 117(b)5+(b2) 2-3 of the VAT Law.
- Prepare, manage or authorize another to prepare or manage false ledgers or other false records, under aggravated circumstances, in accordance with Section 117(b) 6+(b2) 2-3 of the VAT Law.
- The use of any fraud, or trickery, or the permission of another to use them or to perform any other act, with the aim of evading or evading tax under aggravated circumstances, in accordance with section 117(b)8 + (b2)2-3 of the VAT Law.
In this indictment, it was alleged that defendant 1 used no less than 15 invoices pretending to be those of the Merig company and delivered them, through Shlomo Metok, to the purchasers of the goods, in a manner pretending to be invoices on behalf of the corporation, which is the seller of the goods. In fact, it was claimed, the goods sold did not belong to Merig and the use of invoices in the name of this company was a false use.