The prosecution further claims that after the goods were delivered, the supplier contacted the informant bank, together with the relevant documents, in order to receive the consideration for the goods as stated in the letter of credit, but his request was denied due to reservations in the letter of credit. The supplier contacted the opening bank (Bank Leumi) through the notifying bank and asked that it contact the customers in order for them to remove the reservations and allow the repayment of the letter of credit.
The prosecution claims that on April 25, 1999, defendant 1 submitted to the Customs Authority a receipt relating to the import and release of the goods, in the name of Schloss, through the customs broker from Manfield, and on behalf of defendant 4. Attached to this register was an air transport document drawn up in favor of defendant 4, as well as a document presumed to be a sales account in the amount of $113,050 by Contell Investments Limited of London, which was supposed to be the supplier of the goods. This is a false sales account, since the aforementioned goods were not purchased by Contell Investments Limited, but were unlawfully received from the supplierof the goods LA Computer Center The Comp Ltd..
On April 25, 1999, defendant 4 released the goods from customs, and on May 11, 1999, after the goods had already been released from customs, defendant 1, through Lantex, announced his refusal to remove the reservations, and instructed the opening bank to return the documents, including the air baggage bill, to the informing bank. Notice, as stated, was given by the opening bank on May 13, 1999.
The prosecution claims that defendant 1 forged the false sales account, in order to use it to deceive the customs and to disguise the fact that he took the goods illegally. In these acts, the prosecution claims, defendants 1 and 4 took the goods fraudulently and without the consent of the supplier, out of deception without a claim of right and good faith. All this, while using an air transport document and a false sales account. In addition, defendants 1 and 4 submitted a false sales account and registration to the Customs, and even gave false information in order to mislead the customs officer. The prosecution maintains that defendants 1 and 4 committed their acts together.