While Merig supposedly sold merchandise that belonged to her, it is not possible to point to invoices according to which she purchased the rights to the goods, which she sold to buyers.
The prosecution claims that it has proven that the Merig invoices are fictitious invoices, since there is no real transaction behind them between real parties to the transaction, or the invoice was issued not by the correct party to the transaction.
In the present case, the prosecution claims, 15 invoices were issued by defendant 1, through Shlomo Matuk, and on behalf of the Merig company, which were delivered to the purchasers of the goods : "in the manner in which they are presumed to be invoices on behalf of the corporation selling the goods".
These are invoices issued as part of charges 7-14, when according to the claim, the goods sold did not belong to the Merig company, and the use of these invoices was a false use.
In the defense summaries, no counter-version was raised in the context of the prosecution's claims that these were fictitious invoices, but it was claimed that defendant 1 had no share or estate in the Merig company.
Since I have determined that the words of defendant 1 in this context should not be accepted, and that he stands behind the operation of the Merig company and the issuance of invoices on its behalf, through Shlomo Matuk, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has proven the commission of the offense, which relates to this matter.
Indeed, the Marig company was not the real owner of the goods, which is the subject of indictments 7-14, when in all cases the importer was another party, without there being a real transfer and in return, of the goods received, to the Marig company.
For this reason, it can be determined that when invoices were issued from Merig in respect of these goods, they were fictitious invoices, since there was no real transaction behind them, and even if there was such a transaction, the company was not a party to that transaction (see in this regard, Avi Friedman, Value Added Tax: The Law and the Rule (Second Edition, 5771-2010, at p. 811, and the case law cited therein).