As stated, defendant 1 rejects with both hands the version of Kalamaru, according to which at a certain point he withdrew from the execution of the transaction and the goods were ordered and purchased by M.R.L.D. and Schloss, and after its release, the goods were sold toOPCI for full payment. Defendant 1 claims that this is a false and unfounded version with all its components.
As to the involvement of Nova Holdings Ltd., defendant 1 claims that he has not and did not have any connection with this company. He did not ask anyone to send the letters on behalf of the company and did not know that such letters were sent to the supplier. Since Avi Kalmaro was the orderer of the goods, it is reasonable to assume that he himself is connected to this company and certainly not Defendant 1.
The civil lawsuit filed on behalf of the supplier against defendant 4 only testifies to this, that he was the one who ordered the goods and he was the one who did not pay for it. During the course of the investigation of the claim, Avi Kalmaro did not claim anything about the involvement of Defendant 1. In light of the aforesaid, the clear conclusion is that "Avi Kalmaru, and he alone, is behind the fraudulent and theft of goods in this case."
With regard to the allegation regarding the submission of false sales accounts to customs, defendant 1 denies any involvement in this and claims that all the documents were transferred to him from Kalmaru, including the sales account submitted to customs. According to defendant 1, he had no part in receiving this sales account or in producing it, and he does not know its source. He himself did not falsify the sales account and did not use it in any way illegally. It was further argued that defendant 1 had no interest in reducing the tax payments, and certainly not by way of submitting a false sales account, since he was not the orderer of the goods and he was not supposed to bear the payment of the release taxes of the goods. In any event, an examination of the sales account submitted to the Customs shows that even if the supplier is different from the original supplier, the value of the goods appearing in the sales account is identical to the value of the goods as demanded by the original supplier, so that the value has not been reduced. This fact omits the ground under the version of the lawsuit, according to which the entire purpose of the false sales accounts was to reduce tax payments. In light of the aforesaid, it was argued that the prosecution was unable to prove the fact that a false bill of sale was submitted to the customs on the part of defendant 1, and certainly not at a level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In conclusion, the defense seeks to acquit the defendant of all the offenses attributed to him in the second charge.