The prosecution seeks to convict Defendant 3 of two offenses of forgery with the intention of obtaining anything through him, two offenses of false registration in corporate documents and two offenses of using a forged document.
Defendant 1's arguments regarding the 18th charge
- First and foremost, it was argued that Defendant 1 should not be convicted of the offenses attributed to him on this charge, both because he was not given a reasonable and fair opportunity to defend himself and because of the statute of limitations claims.
On the merits of the matter, defendant 1 claims that no evidence was presented to support the prosecution's claims that the companies JCC and ICT were opened fraudulently and fraudulently, for defendant 1. As far as he is concerned, these are real and real companies that were managed by Yehoshua Chelouche and by "Chaim", Kobi Zoaretz. Defendant 1's part was in providing services to these companies, and especially financing services for the costs and expenses of clearing goods from customs. The two signatories, Jan Schwartzman and Meir Ben Shimon, denied any contact or acquaintance with Defendant 1, or the companies concerned. The testimony of CPA Natan Harpaz indicates that he opened the companies and registered them at the request of Yehoshua Shlosh and Araldo Frisi, and he does not mention defendant 1 at all, in connection with them.
The defendant further claims that he never used these companies as shell companies and did not ask anyone else to use them as such, for his own sake.
As to the prosecution's claim that it proved the commission of the offense in the framework of the general proof that these were shell companies that were managed and controlled by defendant 1, the defense responds that this does not constitute evidence indicating that the companies were established and opened for defendant 1. In order to substantiate the claim, separate and independent evidence must be presented that the company was indeed established for that person, who later used it. Moreover, the defense argues that even if it is proven that the companies were indeed opened for defendant 1, the prosecution is still obligated to prove, with separate and independent evidence, that defendant 1 was aware that they were opened, while committing acts of fraud and forgery.