Defendant 1, Uri Resh's Response to the General Part of the Indictment
- In the introduction to the extensive summaries of defendant 1, it was argued that the prosecution considers the actions of this defendant to be fraudulent and fraudulent, while it is in the field of inter-commerce-Leumi and the field of foreign financing-Banker for trade transactions between-Leumi, issues that require complexity and creativity, and have nothing to do with the commission of fraudulent acts.
According to the defense's approach, the prosecution mistakenly views the complex and creative solutions created in the framework of the transactions mentioned in the indictment as reflecting acts of fraud and fraud, while this is a necessity of the business reality, which is unique to the transactions in question.
The prosecution focuses on a small number of transactions out of hundreds of parallel transactions handled by Defendant 1 during that period, which creates a distortion of reality.
In addition, the prosecution is based on a number of key witnesses, all of whom are involved witnesses and have a clear interest in removing responsibility from their shoulders and transferring it to the shoulders of defendant 1.
The defense is of the opinion that in this case, the prosecution is trying to shift the burden of proof, as well as the burden of bringing the evidence, on the shoulders of defendant 1, without having to prove its claims, at a level above any reasonable doubt.
The prosecution tries to base its arguments on impressive theories and a body of evidence, many of which are inadmissible, but this is no substitute for presenting admissible and weighty evidence, and meeting the burden of proof required in a criminal proceeding.
The prosecution's reliance on Internet search results is not a substitute for admissible evidence, while there is a clear and cohesive evidentiary way to submit computerized evidence.
The defense argues that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, with the prosecution having the burden of proving that its factual thesis is the correct one, and that the defense's factual thesis does not raise any reasonable doubt.