As for the question of who the merchandise belonged to, Mahfouz Shlofi replied, "The merchandise was from Sevilla, whom I did not know."
The invoice was received by Mauri Resch, who "behaved like the owner of the goods that were sold to Soydan."
Shlofi clarified that defendant 1 told him that he had a container of coffee "that he bought from Elhanan who once worked for him, and that he wanted to sell the coffee, and I found a buyer for Uri Resch's merchandise." As stated, Shlofi claimed that he received the invoice from Defendant 1 and that he himself was not in contact with any other person.
The checks that were given to Shlofi by the buyer Swidan, were transferred to the possession of defendant 1 in a café in Herzliya. Defendant 1 also arranged for the goods to be transported to Sweidan's warehouses.
In his testimony in court, Mahfouz Shloufi tried to change his statement during the interrogation, according to which the goods belonged to defendant 1, saying that the goods belonged to someone from Nablus, while defendant 1 was engaged in financing "someone from Nablus who had the goods and financed it" (p. 2471 of the transcript, para. 23). These words of Shlopi are inconsistent with what was stated in his statement P/307, and they constitute suppressed testimony, and in any case of contradiction, I consider that the things that were given in the statement should be preferred to the testimony of Shlopi in court, which was intended to minimize the role of defendant 1. In this context, I will note that I do not express any opinion regarding the prosecution's hypothesis, according to which Mahfouz Shlopi himself is involved in the commission of the offense of fraudulent receipt, as far as the coffee bags are concerned. This is a mere hypothesis based, inter alia, on statements made by Yehoshua Shlosh in his recorded conversation with defendant 3. Needless to say, the claim does not attribute to anyone the fraudulent receipt of the coffee bags, and therefore there is no need to address this matter.