As far as the first container is concerned, an original bill of lading was used, to which were attached the records P/59 (storage), P/60 and P/61 (release). There is no dispute that according to those records, the supplier of the goods is Contel Investments Limited. There is no dispute that this fact is false, as the supplier is a regent company from Taiwan. Please note that the amounts on the actual invoice are the same as those on the Contel invoice, amounting to $67,232. According to the prosecution, the falsehood in the notes P/59, P/60 and P/61 "is that the account that was attached is not the account according to which the goods will be brought to Israel."
This is the place to address the lawsuit's claim that the foreign company Contel is a shell company, and that no evidence was presented that it was a registered corporation. This argument relates to the import records in Charges 1, 2 and 9, and therefore these words can also apply to the additional charges. The defendant's version is that the British company Contel is not familiar to him and he did not work with it, either as a supplier or financier of products. He claimed that the Contel supplier's account was given to him by Haim Buchris, who also handed him the original bill of lading, signed with Contel's conversion stamp. Buchris, on the other hand, claimed that he did not know the account of the supplier Contel and that he had not done any business with that company. He also noted that Contel was only a name, devoid of any real content, and that he did not have a power of attorney to act on its behalf.
If I have to choose the more reliable version, I state without any hesitation that Buchris's version reflects reality, and I do not believe that there is any substance to the claim that the British Contel documents reached defendant 1, through Buchris. The prosecution concludes that these are fake and false accounts also stemming from errors in the supplier's accounts, such as the spelling of the name of the street where the company is supposedly located. The prosecution notes that in connection with Charge 10, a supplier account of another company from London was presented (Document 3790 B/145), and there too appear the address and phone numbers identical to those in the supplier account of the British company Contel. The lawsuit also draws attention to the lack of numerical sequence in documents that appear to be Contel vendor accounts.