Further proof of the lack of logic that exists in the prosecution's claims, with regard to the formulation of misleading and misleading terms in documentary credit, lies in the fact that every such document must undergo three external objective and professional filters, namely the opening bank, the supplier's bank, and the supplier himself. There is no reasonableness in claiming that conditions and reservations that cannot be met, which cannot be discovered by those mechanisms, are supposed to carefully examine the wording of the document.
The defense summaries include a reference to the meaning of the objection to the removal of the reservations, despite the release of the goods. First, it was argued, it was not defendant 1 who refused to remove the reservations, but rather he acted as an advisor to Calderon, and he made the decision. The defendant advised Calderón not to remove the reservations, since Buchris did not pay and did not express any intention of paying the cost of the goods to Calderón as part of the letter of credit. In fact, the letter of credit has not become operational at all, and the refusal to remove the reservations is tantamount to refusing to make it operational retroactively.
In light of the aforesaid, it was argued by the defense, defendant 1's actions in ordering the goods and issuing the documentary letters of credit were not tainted by fraud or fraud. The evidence and the logic of the matter show that there was no fraudulent intention on his part and he did not act fraudulently, and needless to say, the matter was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the defense further argues, the defendant should be acquitted of these charges.
The other part relating to the first charge concerned allegations regarding the taking of the goods without paying for them. The defendant does not deny that after the person ordering the goods, Haim Buchris, informed him that he had reached an agreement with the supplier outside the credit line and contacted him to request his services in financing the costs of the release, he agreed to this. In addition, the defendant does not deny that at Buchris's request, he mediated between him and a shipping company he knew, as well as between him and a customs broker and a clearing company. The defendant was in contact with all three parties in the framework of his position and as part of the service he provided. However, the defendant vehemently denies that he took the goods himself, and that at some point he was the owner or holder of the goods. The first container was released by Shlomo Metuk and Haim Buchris, with the goal being that Metuk would market the goods and serve as a kind of trustee for the funds received from the sales, in order to make sure that the first funds received would be used, first of all, to repay debts, and the balance would be transferred to Buchris. In practice, according to the defense, Buchris himself acted to market the goods, and even took part of the proceeds, contrary to the agreement. In any event, the defendant was never the owner or holder of the goods, and his entire interest in selling them was for the purpose of obtaining the repayment of the debts of Buchris, to him and to the other service providers.