Later, Shlomo Metuk says : "All the money that was received for all the goods that were sold in both Schloss and Merig was given to Uri Resch, almost 99% always in checks, not only to the beneficiary, can be transferred."
To the investigator's question : "Where are the invoice books in the name of Merig Import and Marketing and International Trade that you had?Shlomo Matuk replied : "I gave all the notebooks in their entirety to Uri Resch in the office in Rishpon. I returned Schloss's notebooks immediately after each use, and I returned Merig's notebooks about a year ago."
Also in his statement of November 7, 2000 (P/272), Shlomo Matuk said about the Marig company : "... Uri was the one who controlled and managed all the issues of bookkeeping. Uri Resch told me to issue an invoice for Marig. I acted according to his instructions, I was an employee in Marig."
Insofar as Shlomo Metuk contradicted, in his testimony in court, these explicit statements, I prefer what was stated in the statements he gave, during his interrogation in this affair, in accordance with section 10A of the Evidence Ordinance.
As I noted in my previous remarks, I did not get to the end of Shlomo Metuk's involvement in the affairs described in the indictment, even though he was the executor of the sale of the goods, on behalf of defendant 1. It was not clear to me to what extent Shlomo Matuk was involved in the criminal plans hatched by Defendant 1, and to what extent he knew that these were goods that were partially expelled fraudulently, and some of them while reducing import taxes. In any event, I am of the opinion that in his testimony in court, Shlomo Sweet tried to minimize his own part, and also to assist, as much as possible, Defendant 1 in his distress. Therefore, I consider that the words that were given by Shlomo Metuk in his statements should be preferred to his testimony in court, insofar as there is a contradiction between the words.
I am of the opinion that on the basis of the testimony of Shlomo Metuk in his police interrogation, and on the basis of the rest of the circumstantial evidence pointed out by the prosecution, it can be determined, unequivocally, that the Marig company was managed and operated directly by defendant 1, and that he was the one who provided Mario Weissman with the names of the intended shareholders, Avraham Sztgowski and Forum Office Ltd. Needless to say, these parties "won" the company's shares without knowing anything about it, and Avraham Sztgowski was even appointed a director of the company, about which he had never heard of in his life.