To the fabric of evidence presented by the prosecution can also be added the fact that Defendant 1 was the one who received all the necessary data to produce forged certificates of exchange rate, as well as records that would enable the release of the goods. The defendant denied that he knew of Yehoshua Shlosh's involvement in everything involved in the release of the goods in the four containers, and Shlosh himself claimed that he handled the release of the goods at the request of Haim Buchris. As stated, in his conversation with defendant 3, Shlosh confirmed that he had handled the release of the goods for defendant 1 and knew that the goods had been transferred to a warehouse in Kibbutz Yakum. A certain reinforcement for the fact that Shlosh acted to release the goods on behalf of defendant 1 is found in the fact that he did not know Buchris at all and did not even identify him in an identification lineup, which contradicts the claim that he released the goods at his request.
All the containers were stored in the warehouses of the Ocean Company in the Universe by Shlomo Sweet, on behalf of Contel Investments Ltd. Defendant 1 confirmed that he was the one who paid for the storage, even though he claimed that he did so at Metuk's request. It should be noted that Contel Investments Ltd., which according to the prosecution version is a straw company that is devoid of real commercial content, is registered at the address of the office of defendant 1 - 4 HaKfar St., Rishpon. Shlomo Metuk himself confirmed that the person who handled the transfer of the containers to Ocean warehouses and gave instructions regarding them was Defendant 1. Metuk further confirmed that he was engaged in the sale of computer monitors and that he transferred the proceeds from the sales to the defendant's office.
It should be noted, in this context, that according to the calculation made by the plaintiff, the gems were sold at a loss, i.e., in the amount of NIS 630, plus VAT, an amount that was equal to $157, while the price agreed upon with the supplier was $191, without adding additional expenses. The prosecution is of the opinion that this indicates that the goods are stolen goods, since it is unlikely that the selling price to customers in Israel will be considerably lower than the purchase price. The prosecution explains this fact by saying that the cost of the purchase was not paid, and it seems that there is great reason for this, which is joined by the rest of the circumstantial evidence.