It was further claimed that defendant 4 deducted from the tax on the transactions, input tax, according to a document pretending to be invoice No. 0164 dated December 7, 1999, issued by Lirico Fabrics (Israel) Ltd., in the amount of NIS 143,224, for marketing consulting.
This defendant was deducted from the tax on the transactions, input tax, according to a document pretending to be invoice No. 0024 dated August 16, 2000, issued by the firm Omega-Heimlik in the amount of NIS 631,800, for the supply of computer components, Intel 3 processors, AMD processors and hard disks for computers.
The lawsuit claims that the aforementioned tax invoices are fictitious, since they do not relate to any real transactions, which are false and for which they were not paid.
It was further claimed that Defendant 1 issued these invoices, with the knowledge and for Defendant 4, with the common purpose of defrauding the tax authorities, through OPCI, and in order to disguise the fact that the goods that are the subject of the invoices were received illegally.
The input tax, according to the aforementioned invoices, was deducted by the defendants even though they did not have invoices that were duly issued.
OPCI's ledgers were managed by defendant 4 as false ledgers and records, fraudulently and deceitfully, with the aim of deceiving the tax authorities.
In doing so, the defendants issued fictitious tax invoices and deducted inputs from the tax according to them, on top of the added value to which they were obligated by law. As a result of these actions, the defendants and OPCI evaded a tax appeal in the total amount of NIS 606,601.
The prosecution's arguments regarding indictment 16
- This indictment relates to tax appeal offenses committed by Defendant 4, Avi Kalamaro, in bookkeeping and filing tax appeal reports of the company he owns, OPCI. According to the prosecution, this is a deduction of input tax that was made according to fictitious invoices, which were delivered to defendant 4 together with the goods received fraudulently in the framework of charges 2, 4, 5 and 7. The prosecution argues that it has proven that each of the aforementioned invoices is fictitious, as part of the hearing of the charges themselves.
The prosecution further argues that the person who issued the fictitious invoices and delivered them to defendant 4, with the intention and knowledge that he would use them, is none other than defendant 1, and thus he should be regarded as the main perpetrator of the offenses under the VAT Law.