Another interest that Alon Granot has in implicating Defendant 1 in criminal charges relates to the large financial debt, which stands at over NIS 1 million, and there is no doubt that Granot believes that if the defendant is convicted of criminal charges, it will make it easier for him to evade paying the debt.
In these circumstances, the defense believes, Alon Granot's credibility is "low to zero," and no weight can be attributed to his testimony. Granot's claims, which ostensibly aid arguments regarding method and similar actions, are patently unfounded and inconsistent with the evidence. Granot's testimony is a suppressed testimony, since in his interrogations with the police and customs, he did not address the issues at all, and made do with giving general statements, with the aim of defaming defendant 1. Thus, for example, his claim that the letters of credit were misdrafted in such a way as to ensure the existence of reservations that the supplier would not be able to meet, is illogical and unfeasible. This is because it is not possible to predict the action of the supplier in advance and it is not possible to guarantee in advance the existence of reservations, which is under the sole control of the supplier. In addition, the letter of credit undergoes several professional filters, and the banks concerned, as well as the supplier's experts, will not allow the opening of a letter of credit if it contains obstructive conditions that cannot be met. The concrete example that Granot presents to substantiate his words is based on a complete misunderstanding of the issue at hand, and therefore nothing can be learned from it.
As for Alon Granot's claim that in that meeting with defendants 1 and 5, it was Uri Resch who offered the possibility of releasing the goods without paying for them by means of a forged stamp – this is, according to the defense, an unreasonable, illogical and also false claim. At that meeting, the fate of Alon Granot's business and not the transaction relating to Defendant 1 was discussed, and therefore there was no logic in the fact that Defendant 1 would offer to act fraudulently in order to save Granot's business. Defendant 5 also categorically denied Granot's claim and confirmed the words of defendant 1.