The prosecution claims that in order to sell the goods in Israel, invoices were used for the Marig company, which, according to the accuser, is a straw company, which was used by defendant 1, without the formal owners of this company having any connection to the goods.
According to the prosecution, the sales receipts were transferred to defendant 1's pocket and were not delivered to others, which "constitutes evidence that these are goods that he fraudulently received and sold for himself only."
In order to prove the claim that defendant 1 used forged documents, including false invoices, false supplier accounts and forged rate certificates for the last four containers, the prosecution notes the fact that the defendant made use of documents prepared in the same format. Thus, it was argued that the common denominator of all the supplier's accounts that were attached to the import registers is the presence of spelling errors in the details of the firms that allegedly produce the accounts. This is a mistake in the spelling of the street name in London, in the accounts of the Contel company, as well as an error in the house number at the address of the Plans company, and so on. Such errors may serve as evidence that these documents are forged.
With regard to the first container, it was argued, as stated, that it was a forged supplier's account and false registrations, without dispute, that the British company Contel, which was used by defendant 1 in order to produce false and forged supplier accounts, was not connected to the transactions for the purchase and import of the goods, which is the subject of the first indictment.
With regard to the other four containers, forged records and supplier accounts were used, as is evident from the comparison of the forged documents with the real transaction documents found in the bank file, P/135.
For the purpose of releasing the goods in these four containers, forged exchange rate certificates, which were delivered to the customs broker, Yosef Bashi, from defendant 2, were used. The documents were not issued by the ship's agent, and the witness David Nidam, on behalf of Carmel Shipping, stated in his testimony in court that these were forged gate certificates, and that a complaint was even filed with the police.