Defendant 4 did not say anything about the fact that he transferred to defendant 1 the amount of the appellant's taxes obligated, in order for it to be transferred to the VAT authorities, and this is a puzzling claim, which has no support in the evidence presented, in this context.
Equally, I do not believe that there is any substance to the argument that defendant 4 is not responsible for the false reports that were made to the authorities by the tax appeal on behalf of OPCI.
Section 119 of the Tax Appeal Law explicitly states that :
"If an offense is committed under this law or regulations thereunder by a group of persons, incorporated or unincorporated, anyone who, at the time of the commission of the offense, had an active manager, secretary, trustee, representative, active partner, accountant, bookkeeper or any other responsible official shall also be guilty, unless he proves that the offense was committed without his knowledge or that he took all appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the provisions of the law."
There is no dispute that defendant 4 was the owner and manager of OPCI, and as such, he is responsible for every offense committed by the company, as stated in section 119 of the VAT Law.
Adv. Meirovich's argument that Defendant 4 is not responsible for OPCI's conduct is nothing more than an empty claim, which should be rejected. Equally, the argument that defendant 4 cannot be convicted as an active manager of the company without prosecuting the company itself.
I have not found any support for this claim, and I have not been presented with any reference in this matter, and this is not anchored or derives from the provision of section 119 of the VAT Law. Therefore, I also reject this argument, which was raised by defendant 4.
In summary, I am of the opinion that defendant 4 should be convicted of the offenses attributed to him, insofar as the submission of the fictitious invoices and the deduction of input tax illegally.
As stated, the fictitious invoices were provided to defendant 4 by defendant 1, or anyone on his behalf. This defendant knew that these invoices would be submitted to the tax appellant by OPCI, and that they would be used in order to deduct input tax, unlawfully. Thus, Defendant 1 should be regarded as an accomplice of Defendant 4 in the commission of the offenses, as a joint operation.