As for the allegations against defendant 4 in the second indictment, Adv. Meirovich claims that the wording of the indictment did not deal with the question of the defendant's role in committing the offenses specified in it. General arguments were made and the matter was not clarified even in the framework of the accuser's extensive summaries. As a result, defendant 4's ability to defend himself was impaired, since it is not clear which of the many facts alleged in this indictment are specifically attributed to the defendant.
The reason why the acts attributed to defendant 4 were not detailed, Adv. Meirovich argued, is that the accuser was unable to bring convincing evidence that the defendant was part of the fraudulent acts attributed to defendant 1 and the other defendants. It was further argued that the prosecution witnesses, most of them almost all, did not testify to anything about the involvement of defendant 4, and had no contact or acquaintance with him. For this reason, the defense did not find it necessary to cross-examine those witnesses and ask them questions as part of their cross-examination.
In this indictment, this is a legitimate transaction that went wrong, and defendant 4 did not conspire with defendant 1 or others in order to deceive the supplier of the goods. According to defendant 4, this is a civil-business dispute that has no criminal background, as far as it is concerned. The first meeting between Defendant 1 and Defendant 4 was intended to locate the possibility of financing the transaction, since OPCI was unable to meet the terms of the supplier's demand for payment for the computers. Even if defendant 1 had planned, already at that stage, to raise reservations to the letter of credit in such a way that the consideration would not be paid to the supplier, there is no evidence that this was known to defendant 4, or that he was an accomplice in planning and carrying out the fraud. There is no dispute that the goods that were released reached OPCI, but Defendant 4 was not aware that at the time of release Defendant 1 did not remove the reservations, and this was brought to his attention only after the supplier contacted him. Immediately afterwards, Defendant 4 contacted Defendant 1, several times, and asked to settle the matter.