In addition, the prosecution seeks to convict the defendant of certain offenses that were not included in the original indictment and of other offenses that are not mentioned in it at all. The defense also sees this as conduct that contradicts the principles of justice and legal fairness, and in its opinion, this justifies the acquittal of defendant 1. Alternatively, it was argued that the court should refrain from unnecessary convictions in places where the prosecution had increased the number of charges and artificially split them.
- Defendant 3 also raised in his summaries, through counsel, Twist"IV Orit Hayoun and Guy Ashkenazi, a claim of protection from justice that should lead, in his opinion, to his acquittal of all guilt. According to the claim, the investigation in this case suffered from significant failures, since the investigators in the case did not investigate directions of investigation that did not conform to their initial view. The investigators' intention was not to reach the truth and do justice, but to bring about the incrimination of the defendants at any cost. They ignored evidence that required the examination of other investigative directions and marked a goal for themselves, and only afterwards did they conduct a superficial investigation of the affair. The investigators did not investigate all the relevant suppliers from abroad and did not examine who placed the order for the goods, who was in contact with the suppliers, and who received the consideration for the goods. The investigators let many of those involved understand that if they incriminate the defendants, they will save their skin from getting into trouble with law enforcement. Against this background, almost all of the messages of those involved are biased and tendentious. Even in their testimony in court, some of the interrogees continued to fear that the prosecution would take criminal proceedings against them if they deviated from their statements during the interrogation at the customs or the police, and therefore they continued in the same line they had taken in their interrogation.
As another investigative failure, the defense finds that the investigation was completed during the trial and after the indictment was filed, in a manner that severely harmed the ability of defendant 3 to defend himself. Another failure of the investigation, it is claimed, lies in the fact that after the testimony of each key prosecution witness, the defense received a new version of that witness, which contained many new data, which were not known to it until then. The defense also finds that the prosecution's failure to summon witnesses who were registered as prosecution witnesses to testify is an additional prosecution omission. Although Defendant 3 published his version from the outset, the investigators did not carry out any investigative action to try to ascertain the truth of his statements, out of a clear bias and on the basis of a superficial investigation.