Defendant 1's arguments regarding the second charge
- Defendant 1 denies everything alleged in the indictment and claims that he did not conspire with Defendant 4 to defraud the supplier of goods from the United States LA Computer Center The Comp Ltd.. According to the defendant, he served as an intermediary between a client who approached him, Avi Kalamaro, and an external financing entity-Banker, Aharon Calderon, in order to reach an arrangement of external financing-A banker by opening a letter of credit, for the purpose of importing goods from abroad. As an expert financial advisor in credit transactions, defendant 1 came up with creative solutions to the complex and unique difficulties and problems that arose in this transaction. The defendant vehemently denies that he was the orderer of the goods, or that he was involved in ordering the goods, or that he had an interest in ordering the goods. From the testimony of the supplier's representative, it clearly emerges that the only party with whom he was in contact was Avi Kalmaro, he was the one who initiated the transaction, he sent the purchase offer document and negotiated with him in writing. The representative did not know Defendant 1 and had never heard his name. For this reason, a civil lawsuit was filed against Avi Kalmaro and the OPCI and not against defendant 1. The reason why the name of M.R.L.D. It appears on the order form, according to defendant 1, in the financial arrangements that the parties reached prior to the stage of opening the documentary credit, and it should not be inferred from this that M.R.L.D. She would order the goods. The examination of the identity of the client must be substantive and informal, and there is no doubt that the client was Avi Kalmaro and the OPCI.
In the summaries of defendant 1, it was argued that the suppressed version of defendant 4, according to which he withdrew from the transaction at a certain point, should not be trusted, and that another party, M.R.L.D. Or that they were the ones who executed the transaction and from whom he purchased the goods. The supplier's representative, Mr. Jadidi, categorically denied this claim of Kalmaro and it should be remembered that the supplier's claim in Israel was accepted and defendant 4 was obligated to compensate him. There is no dispute that Defendant 4 approached Defendant 1 with a request to receive financing services for the import of goods through documentary credit, and for this purpose Defendant 1 mediated between Defendant 4 and Aharon Calderon. The opening of the documentary credit was done through the Lantex company owned by Aharon Calderon, defendant 1 was entitled to the payment of commission, and this alone. As stated above, defendant 1 did not have any contact with the supplier and did not negotiate with him regarding the transaction or regarding the wording of the documentary credit. It was further argued that in light of "The enormous complexity of the financial and commercial situation" Defendant 1 assisted in drafting the request to open the letter of credit, but not the letter itself. The letter of credit itself was drafted at Calderon's opening bank, Bank Leumi Le-Israel. The prosecution's argument that the wording of the letter of credit was intended to fail the supplier and create reservations, in a way that would enable the goods to be taken free of charge, is contradicted by the objective evidence and the testimonies submitted to the court. It was also argued that this argument contradicts pure commercial logic. All the clauses of the letter of credit were received by the supplier and his bank, and they read the document and analyzed it in depth, so there is no talk of creating reservations or hidden conditions intended to fail the supplier.