Even if the reservations were inserted into the letter of credit in complete good faith, the very refusal of defendant 1 to remove the reservations and instruct the bank to pay is an offense – according to the prosecution.
In this regard, the prosecution argues that despite the fact that all the goods ordered were released by defendants 1 and 2, and even though the supplier offered a significant discount, defendant 1 refused to remove the reservations and make the letter of credit operational, and even instructed the bank not to honor the letter of credit and to return the documents to the supplier's bank.
The prosecution clarifies that it had no claim against defendant 1, if he had made do with leaving the letter of credit as non-operative without touching the goods. In order to take the goods without paying for them, defendant 1 needed an original bill of lading or a gate certificate. The prosecution claims that for this reason alone, the letter of credit included a condition according to which the bill of lading must be prepared for the Contel Ordinance and not for the Bank Ordinance, and it was further determined that the supplier must send an original set of documents to Transdor. In this way, defendant 1 could have released the goods, without removing the reservations and without paying for them.
As may be recalled, the prosecution claims that Contel is a shell company that was part of the fraudulent scheme, and through which defendant 1 released the goods himself, without Haim Buchris being involved in it. The testimony of Mrs. Thelma Ramon of Bank Leumi indicates that the person who gave instructions to the bank regarding the letter of credit was defendant 1, and his denial, which was refuted, strengthens the prosecution's evidence.
In order to learn about the fraudulent methods of Defendant 1, the prosecution brought witnesses who encountered similar acts, such as Alon Granot and Elhanan Tenenbaum, who were exposed to such acts of Defendant 1.
As far as the testimony of Elhanan Tenenbaum is concerned, the prosecution refers to the file of documents, P/224, from which it can be learned that defendant 1 was involved in "sting maneuvers" intended to order goods from suppliers from abroad, without the intention of paying for them.