Defendant 4's arguments regarding the second charge
- At the beginning of her summary, Adv. Meirovich, counsel for defendant 4, argued that the evidence file is overloaded with documents, but there is no dispute that most, if not all, of the documents are forged, in that they were stamped with forged stamps and false details appeared on them or not-Accurate. The one and only factor behind all the fraudulent acts that the indictment recounts, and which he did, in all the other defendants, as he pleased, is none other than Defendant 1. He was the one who deceived the other defendants, used their names, personal details and phone numbers and even used their bank accounts.
Defendant 1 took advantage of his friendship and connections with Defendant 4 in order to forge documents bearing the details of the OPCI company, which was owned by the latter, to the point that even the accuser believed that Defendant 4 was involved in the criminal acts included in the eighth indictment. Only at the summary stage did the prosecution reach the conclusion that defendant 4 had no part in the acts attributed to him in the framework of the eighth indictment, since defendant 1 and others forged the company's details without his knowledge. Just as defendant 1 deceived the tax authorities with great sophistication, so he also acted against defendant 4, when he presented him with false representations and even lied to him with a determined forehead, pretending to be his friend.
Defendant 1 was clever enough not to leave his personal details among those who might locate him, and in order to prevent him from being exposed as having committed many criminal acts, he used, as stated, the personal details of the other defendants, including Defendant 4.
As for defendant 4 – even if the prosecution has the evidence indicating his involvement, these are still passages that cannot teach about the whole. In this regard, Adv. Meirovich quoted at length the case law regarding the use of circumstantial evidence, which may lead to a conviction, only if, at the end of the legal process, it is possible to point to a scenario whereby the defendant committed the act "as the only logical conclusion that arises from the evidence." Adv. Meirovich presented a case law regarding the applicability of reasonable doubt, noting that in order to meet the required degree of proof, "the prosecution must prove the elements of guilt with a high degree of probability bordering on certainty."