Defendant 1's arguments regarding the first charge
- As stated above, defendant 1 does not deny that he served as an intermediary between the orderer of the goods, Haim Buchris, and the party behind the foreign financing-Banker, Aaron Calderon, who is the owner of Lantex. In his view, this was a strictly kosher financial transaction, and he, as a businessman, identified a business opportunity whose main purpose was to help Bucharis, who was in financial trouble, import 1,500 computer monitors. The intention was that Calderon would "rent" Buchris the volume of credit available to him and open a letter of credit for him, in exchange for a certain commission. Defendant 1 also does not deny that he serves as a financial advisor, an expert in credit transactions, and that he assisted in drafting the requests to open letters of credit.
The complex situation, which included a bankrupt and financier who insisted on his right to receive appropriate collateral, obliged defendant 1 to find creative solutions, and all the explanations raised by the prosecution, as if these were planned acts of fraud, are nothing more than unfounded theories and speculation. The defense reiterates its claim that the defendant was not the orderer of the goods and was not involved in ordering it, when Haim Buchris was the one who initiated the transaction with the supplier from Hong Kong, Regent. The defense further argues that the prosecution has not been able to prove that defendant 1 was the orderer of the goods or any interested party in ordering it, and therefore the logic underlying the prosecution's arguments regarding the fraudulent acts attributed to the defendant collapses.
According to Haim Buchris himself, he was also the initiator behind the import deal, since he was involved in importing computers and electrical appliances and had more than eight years of experience in importing these products to Israel. One of the suppliers, with whom Buchris contacted, was a regent. All the details relating to the transaction were agreed upon between Buchris and the supplier, with the terms of supply written to the intended client, Tel Aviv University. Buchris ordered the goods under the name of Contel Investments Limited, which is registered in England, and even according to Buchris himself, defendant 1 had no connection with that company.