As for the other four containers, they were released without the knowledge of defendant 1, and without any involvement on his part. Only in retrospect, when Natan Harpaz informed the defendant that he had merchandise in his possession that had been released from the port and ready to be marketed in Israel, did the defendant agree to contact him and Sweet so that he would market the goods. All this – without knowing at all that these were the four containers ordered by Buchris, in the transaction that is the subject of the first indictment.
As stated, the defense argues that Natan Harpaz's testimony in court was unreliable, tendentious and innocent, and that no weight should be given to his words, as he is a repeat offender and has a clear interest.
Even in the conversation between Defendant 2, Yehoshua Shlosh, and Defendant 3, Araldo Frisi, does not indicate that the goods came into the hands or control of Defendant 1. In addition, the prosecution did not bring any evidence that the supplier did not receive his money, and the claim that the supplier went bankrupt is not admissible evidence and was presented to the court from a third party, if not more.
It was further claimed that defendant 1 had no part in the forgery of the gate certificates that enabled the release of the four containers. He was not aware of this, and all the handling was done by the customs broker. The defense argues that the prosecution did not present, even a shred of evidence, linking defendant 1 to the forgery of the documents. No evidence was presented that the defendant ever held them or handed them over to anyone, and none of the customs brokers, who handled the gate certificates, stated that the documents were received from defendant 1 or that he was connected to them.
With regard to the claim that the sums appearing in the sales accounts were illegally reduced, in order to evade tax payments, the defense argued that the relationship between defendant 1 and the customs brokers and the release companies was limited to the need to promote the release of the goods from the first container only. He did nothing deliberately to illegally reduce tax payments, and he certainly wasn't involved in filing false sales accounts. Since the defendant was not an orderer or owner of the goods or their owners, he was not supposed to bear the payment of the release taxes, and therefore could not derive any profit from the illegal reduction of the tax payments. In light of the aforesaid, the defense argues that defendant 1 did not do anything intended to deliberately reduce the tax payments, and this was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.