Caselaw

Criminal Case (Tel Aviv) 40013/05 State of Israel v. Uri Resch - part 36

September 13, 2011
Print

As for Kobi Zoaretz and Avi Ben Nissan, these are repeat offenders who have been convicted of countless offenses of fraud, fraud, forgery and theft, while some of the companies they established were operated to carry out some of the acts described in the indictment.  For example, they opened the Contel company for Haim Buchris, and opened for their use the companies Savilla Trading in Tax Appeal  and Danidov Ltd.  As part of their activities in these companies, the two impersonated others, and introduced themselves as "Chaim" and "Avi".  The two were brought to testify on behalf of their friend, Avi Kalmaro, who is Defendant 4, and this is false testimony, while raising baseless and suppressed claims, with the intention of incriminating Defendant 1.  Therefore, no weight should be given to their testimony, insofar as it relates to the facts alleged in the indictment.

To this connection can be added in a more distant circle Shimon Berger, who is a businessman living abroad, who carried out business with Buchris, inter alia through a foreign company calledContell Investment Limited.  The defense claims that Shimon Berger was directly involved in Buchris's import deal in the first indictment, and that he was the one who referred Buchris to defendant 1, for the purpose of finding a non-bank financing solution for imports.

Another party connected to the matter is Natan Harpaz, and as the evidence shows, at the end of the day, Natan Harpaz and Haim Buchris held various parts of the merchandise, which Buchris imported, as described in the first indictment.

According to Defendant 1, the same criminal gang took advantage of him and his professional services: "and used his involvement in transactions within the framework of the services he provided, in order to incriminate him and cause him to bear responsibility for their own actions."

As noted, Haim Buchris and Avi Kalmaro were the orderers of the goods in Charges 1 and 2, and if fraudulent offenses were committed in the framework of these charges, they were the ones who committed them, and therefore they have a very strong and significant interest in incriminating others in their actions.

Previous part1...3536
37...320Next part