Caselaw

Criminal Case (Tel Aviv) 40013/05 State of Israel v. Uri Resch - part 285

September 13, 2011
Print

The prosecution's summaries detailed the invoices in question, as part of the 16th indictment.  This refers to Schloss invoice No. 004, dated April 30, 1999, in the sum of NIS 446,277.78 (of P/206); Svila invoice No. 3, dated 14/10/99, in the amount of NIS 2,953,548 (P/470); Lirko invoice No. 164, dated 7/12/99, in the sum of NIS 143,224 (P/483); Omega-Heimlich invoice No. 24, dated 16/8/00, in the amount of NIS 631,800 (P/471); Omega-Heimlich invoice No. 22, dated 25/7/00, in the amount of NIS 66,100 (P/472).

The fact that these invoices were deducted from the transaction tax in OPCI's VAT reports is not in dispute and according to the prosecution it is proven in any case in OPCI's accounting records for the year 1999 (P/394) and 2000 (P/393), as well as in the statements of defendant 4 and his testimony in court.

In light of the above, the prosecution seeks to convict defendants 1 and 4 of all the offenses attributed to them in the framework of this indictment.

Defendant 1's arguments regarding Charge 16

  1. Defendant 1 denies the allegation in the indictment, according to which he or others on his behalf used fictitious invoices in order to create an accounting backup for transactions for the sale of goods that were imported into Israel. The basic argument is that defendant 1 was not the owner, manager or officer in any of the companies mentioned in the indictment, and he did not sell the goods listed in these charges.  Therefore, he also did not issue fictitious invoices in the name of the said companies and did not provide fictitious invoices in their name.

As such, defendant 1 was not responsible for bookkeeping, filing tax reports and issuing invoices on behalf of those companies.

Another argument made by the defendant is that all the invoices detailed in the 16th indictment are real invoices and reflect a transaction that was actually executed, even though the defendant himself was not the one behind the transaction itself.

Therefore, the defendant seeks his acquittal of the charges attributed to him in the framework of the 16th indictment.

Previous part1...284285
286...320Next part