Caselaw

Criminal Case (Tel Aviv) 40013/05 State of Israel v. Uri Resch - part 301

September 13, 2011
Print

According to the prosecution, it was able to prove the involvement of defendant 3, on the basis of the transcript of the conversation between him and Yehoshua Shlosh.  In this transcript, defendant 3 explicitly states that he sent Ben Shimon's ID card to defendant 1.  In Defendant 3's one-on-one conversation with the police investigator, which is documented in File No. 333, Frizzi claimed that Ben Shimon and his ex-wife knew that a company would be opened in their name, and that they voluntarily gave their identity cards.

In his testimony in court, Defendant 3 claimed, for the first time, that he had brought Meir Ben Shimon and Defendant 1 together, when the two talked about business.  This is a suppressed and false version, and no explanation was given as to why this version was not given during the interrogation of Defendant 3 at the Customs or the Police.  Meir Ben Shimon himself denied any acquaintance with Defendant 1 and any knowledge of the registration of the companies JCC and ICT.  From all of the above, it is clear that Defendant 3 gave Defendant 1 the photocopy of the identity cards of Meir Ben Shimon and his ex-wife, Lucien Sadeh, for the purpose of registering a company.  The two did not know about the use of their names and ID numbers for this purpose.  Defendant 3 did not tell the truth when he said that he was present at the meeting between Meir Ben Shimon and Defendant 1, and gave lies in his versions regarding this issue.

Had defendant 3 acted in good faith, he would have had no reason to get involved in a variety of contradictory versions, and his lies constitute circumstantial evidence that supports the conclusion that he knew about the criminal purpose of transferring the identity cards to defendant 1.  It follows that defendant 3 "should have known, or closed his eyes to see, that a company would be established without Ben Shimon's consent and by forging his signature, this is the reason for his lies or incriminating behavior."

            Hence, defendant 3 should be convicted of the offenses attributed to him in the 18th charge.

Previous part1...300301
302...320Next part