As to the argument that defendant 1 used shell companies as referrals and informants, the defense argued that the prosecution did not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these companies did not have an independent economic existence. Thus, for example, it has not been proven thatthe English company Contel is a shell company, and the same is true of the Israeli Contel. Schloss, who appeared as informant in the bill of lading, is also not a shell company, as prosecution witnesses Elhanan Tenenbaum and Raymonda Fischer said that this was a company that carried out real transactions for legal, legitimate and commercial purposes. Similar statements were made with regard to M.R.L.D., which is also a registered and active company, and the prosecution did not bring any evidence to the contrary.
The defense further argues that even if these were indeed shell companies, it was not proven that this was with the knowledge of defendant 1. As far as this defendant was concerned, all the companies concerned were active business companies, and the matter was presented to him by legitimate businessmen. The defense further argues that even if defendant 1 knew that these were shell companies, he had no control or influence over their operations, and even assuming that they were shell companies that were under his control, there is no evidence that the mention of their names in the letter of credit was done with fraudulent and fraudulent intent on his part. According to the defense, this is done on the basis of legitimate professional, substantive, and commercial considerations.
The defense then refers to a number of arguments presented by the prosecution that attest, according to it, to the fraudulent intention on the part of defendant 1. One of the arguments relates to the condition that the documentary credit number will not appear on the documents, and according to the prosecution, this is intended to obscure traces, with the intention of stealing the goods. The defense argues that this condition was added for practical, professional and business reasons, and not for fraudulent and fraudulent intent. The main goal is to preserve the possibility of trading the documents, when the appearance of the first credit number would have prevented any possibility of tradability.