The prosecution's arguments regarding the second charge
- According to the prosecution's approach, the affair described in the second charge is not in the least similar to the affair that is the subject of the first indictment. This was a well-planned act of "stinging", in which defendants 1 and 4 were accomplices, and its purpose was to order laptops from an American supplier, in a way that would allow them to be taken without paying for them at all. Here, too, the same straw companies were used, which defendant 1 used in the framework of the first charge, and the method of operation was also identical to the method used in the first charge. The goods were ordered through the shell company M.R.L.D., and were released through the shell company, while falsely representing to customs that the goods were supplied by Contel of London, which is also a shell company or a fictitious company, all while presenting a fake supplier's account. The computers were sold by Schloss toOPCI belonging to defendant 4, and the latter sold it to the Bezeq communications company. Here, too, defendant 1 instructed Calderon to refuse to remove the reservations and to instruct the opening bank to return the documents, and not to pay for the goods. The stolen supplier came to Israel in order to complain about the theft of the goods and referred his complaint against defendant 4, who was the only party with whom he was in contact. A civil lawsuit was filed against defendant 4, and despite receiving a judgment against this defendant, the supplier did not receive even a fraction of his money, since Calamro entered into receivership and bankruptcy proceedings. In the framework of the civil proceedings, Defendant 4 did not disclose the involvement of Defendant 1, about which the doubter did not know until he was summoned to testify at the trial. The prosecution claims that during the trial, the two defendants sought to place the responsibility on each other's shoulders, but it was proven that they were full accomplices in the act of fraud.
The fraud against the supplier began with the creation of a false representation against him as if the order was made in the name of a legitimate commercial company, while the company M.R.L.D. It is a straw company that is, according to the lawsuit's version, nothing more than an empty vessel.