Caselaw

Criminal Case (Tel Aviv) 40013/05 State of Israel v. Uri Resch - part 288

September 13, 2011
Print

In addition, this is Omega Heimlich invoice No. 24, dated August 16, 2000, in the sum of NIS 631,800 (P/471), for the purpose of providing accounting coverage for the receipt of the goods, which are the subject of charges 4 and 5.

The prosecution also wishes to add the invoice (P/472) in the sum of NIS 66,100 that was discovered to the prosecution prior to the preparation of the cross-examination of defendant 4, and he was warned from the witness stand to defend himself against this claim.

The prosecution claims that these invoices were deducted from the transaction tax, in OPCI's VAT reports, and this is proven by a review of OPCI's accounting cards for the years 1999 (P/394) and 2000 (P/393), as well as in the statements of defendant 4 and his testimony in court.

The prosecution further argues that defendant 4 received the fictitious invoices from defendant 1, and therefore, the two defendants should be viewed as full accomplices in the commission of the offenses.

Defendant 1's main defense argument is, as will be recalled, that he is not connected to the companies that issued the invoices, such as Schloss and Sevilla, and therefore he is not responsible for the commission of the offenses attributed to him, in the framework of this indictment.  In any event, it is claimed, the invoices reflect a real transaction and should not be viewed as fictitious invoices.

Defendant 4, on the other hand, claimed that no proof was presented by the tax appeal authorities that  OPCI  issued periodic tax appeal reports, as claimed by the prosecution.  In addition, it was argued that defendant 4 was not responsible for the actions of OPCI, even if an offense was committed by that company.  In addition, defendant 4 claims that all the sums of the appellant's taxes in respect of the invoices that are the subject of the 16th indictment, he transferred in full to defendant 1, and therefore this is not a case of evasion of the payment of VAT.

In conclusion, defendant 4 argues that the offenses were not committed under aggravated circumstances.

Previous part1...287288
289...320Next part