Since the supplier who sent the goods as part of the first indictment did not testify, there is no knowledge if he did not receive his money for the goods that were sent and released, and the burden in this regard rests on the prosecution. The plaintiff's vague claim that the supplier went bankrupt due to the fact that he did not receive the payment for the goods was not proven by any admissible evidence, and reliance on an examination on the Internet does not constitute a substitute for presenting admissible evidence in this regard.
As such, the prosecution was unable to prove that the goods in question in the first charge were indeed stolen, and certainly did not prove that defendant 1 did so.
With regard to the goods that are the subject of the second indictment, Avi Kalmaro, Defendant 4, was the one who released the container physically and sold the goods to Bezeq. Checks that Avi Kalmaro gave to defendant 1 as part of the financing process were cancelled, returned or returned, but were not redeemed, except for an amount that was used to pay costs and fees to various parties.
Therefore, all of the prosecution's claims, as well as those of Avi Kalmaro himself: "They are theories based on eloquent rhetoric, but not on a shred of evidence."
As to the claim that tax payments were illegally reduced, the defense argues that this claim has no basis in reality, since the evidence does not show that there was a deliberate reduction of tax payments on the part of defendant 1. Since the defendant was not the orderer or owner of the goods, he was not supposed to bear the payment of the release taxes, and therefore could not derive any profit from the illegal reduction of the tax payments.
Regarding the claim regarding the reduction of VAT payments, this makes no sense, since the amount of the tax appeal can be offset, so that any payment of a tax appeal for the release of the goods can be offset against a tax appeal received in respect of the sales receipts.
The fact that the bill of sale submitted to the Customs contains a different supplier from the original supplier of the goods, does not indicate that it is a false sales account. This is even if the value of the goods in this account differs from the value of the goods according to the original supplier. There may be a number of different explanations and scenarios for this possibility, which do not necessarily indicate that it is a false doubtful account. In any event, this was not done with the knowledge and involvement of defendant 1, and therefore he cannot be convicted of forging documents or using forged documents.