The defendant denies that he received the proceeds from the sale of the goods by Merig, since the rights in respect of the goods and receipts were never transferred to him, and he was not entitled to receive the profits therefor. If he sometimes held the receipts, in whole or in part, this was done in order to transfer them to the financing company, or to cover the financing expenses of releasing the goods.
As for the prosecution's claim that these are fictitious tax invoices, it was argued that, as far as marig is concerned, the invoices are not artificial and are not fictitious.
These were real transactions, with no goal set to evade paying taxes, but the considerations were business, economic and commercial.
All the goods it sold from Rig came into its lawful ownership, and therefore there is no basis for the claim that these were fictitious transactions.
In light of the above, the defendant seeks his acquittal of all the offenses attributed to him in the framework of the 15th indictment.
Hearing and Decision on Charge No. 15
- In this indictment, the question arises as to who is the controlling shareholder of "Marig Import and Marketing Ltd" (hereinafter: "Marig"), and who is the party behind the company's activity and the issuance of tax invoices on its behalf.
The prosecution claims that defendant 1 received the Merig company for his use, when the ownership of it was registered in the name of a straw man and a straw company, without these parties being aware of the matter. The main use made by defendant 1 of the Marig company was the issuance of tax invoices to customers.
On the other hand, it was argued by counsel for defendant 1 that the Marig company does not belong, was not operated and was not managed by defendant 1, and therefore any offense committed by the marig company and/or by its managers, if at all, is not connected to the actions and activities of defendant 1.
After reviewing the evidence and considering the arguments of the parties, I have reached the conclusion that the law is with the prosecution and that it is indeed a straw company, which was operated by defendant 1, in the framework of his criminal activity, as detailed above.