As far as the first container in the first charge is concerned, and the goods in the second charge – even if it is a sales account from a supplier that is different from the original supplier, the value of the goods appears in the sales account, it is identical to that demanded by the original supplier, and no reduction of the value of the goods has been made. This leaves the ground under the thesis of the lawsuit, according to which the purpose of the false sales accounts was to reduce tax payments.
The prosecution's claim that the sales accounts were printed in the same format, and that this constitutes evidence that they are forged, is incorrect, since even if there are some similarities between the various documents, this does not make it possible to reach the conclusion that these documents were printed in the same place and in the hands of the same party.
With regard to all types of letters of credit, after such a letter has been opened, the initiator of the letter has no possibility of retracting the credit transaction, and this is an irrevocable transaction.
The only option to amend a letter of credit is when the beneficiary of the credit – the supplier – wishes to make changes to it, since there has been a change in his own situation, such as that he does not have the quantity of goods that have been ordered, or that he cannot meet the deadlines agreed upon, etc. In such cases, the financier can agree or disagree to the amendments, and the opening bank must also approve the requested amendments. In order for the transaction to be executed, the financier must obtain the consent of the client, otherwise he may be "stuck" with merchandise "in which he has nothing to do." Even after the amendment, it is the same letter of credit and not a new letter, even though certain conditions have changed compared to the previous version.
The defense is aware of the fact that the modus operandi in the transactions in which the defendant was involved is quite similar, and even raises questions and questions. The main argument in this context is that Defendant 1 was "exploited and deceived by different clients in a fairly similar manner". The defense agrees that this is not a random coincidence, and part of the explanation lies in the work methods of defendant 1, which have a legitimate professional aspect and are not tainted by fraud. It was also claimed that the conduct described in the various charges was "the result of the work of a fairly sophisticated criminal gang. This criminal gang operated in similar modes of operation within the framework of the international trade world." This criminal gang includes Haim Buchris, Kobi Zoaretz, Avi Ben Nissan and Avi Kalamaro. In a more distant circle, Shimon Berger, Natan Harpaz, Shlomo Metuk and Araldo Frizzi can also be added to these characters, who is Defendant 3.