Caselaw

Criminal Case (Tel Aviv) 40013/05 State of Israel v. Uri Resch - part 40

September 13, 2011
Print

At the time, Alon Granot was the owner and manager of a cluster of companies that could be referred to as "Magnum".  As time passed, Magnum's liquidity problems worsened, until they reached the danger of ceasing operations.  At this stage, Magnum executed a large paper import transaction for the Hadera Paper Mills Company, and for this purpose it needed financing.  To this end, Granot turned to Defendant 1, who tried to find financing solutions for the transaction, but due to lack of collateral, he was unable to do so, and as a result, Granot found himself in great distress.  Defendant 1 further claims that against this background, a meeting was held at the Magnum offices, in which Roberto Wagman (defendant 5) and Granot were also present, in order to try to find a solution to the situation.  The defense claims that Alon Granot, due to his desperate situation, offered to try to defraud the goods by forging the bank's transfer stamp on the bill of lading, in order to release them and transfer them to the Hadera Paper Mills Company.  However, he clarified that after receiving the receipts for the goods, he intended to pay the supplier.  Defendants 1 and 5 adamantly refused to participate in this process and made it clear to Granot that it was a criminal act.  Defendant 1 proposed another non-criminal solution, but Granot rejected it.

Since the defendants were not willing to lend a hand to the fraudulent activities, Alon Granot expressed his anger at defendant 1, and severed ties with him in harsh tones, even refusing to repay his debts.  Subsequently, Magnum's situation deteriorated until it ceased operations, and as a result, Alon Granot remained in debt to various parties, including Aharon Calderon, for the financing he gave Magnum for the purpose of executing the transaction.  Due to Granot's anger at Defendant 1, he expressed, more than once, that he would not hesitate to take revenge on him, and thus it is necessary to explain what he said during the trial, which was aimed at one goal, which was the incrimination of Defendant 1.

Previous part1...3940
41...320Next part