On the basis of this evidence, I determine that it was defendant 1 who attached false supplier accounts to the import records, which relate to the first container, as far as the name and details of the importer of the goods are concerned.
With regard to the four additional containers, I have already determined that the party who forged the gate certificates and used them, whether by himself or by any other means, was defendant 1, and in this way he was able to defraud the goods. As detailed above, defendant 1 used additional forged documents. The notes that were given to the customs broker, Yosef Bashi, were attached to the supplier's accounts, which supposedly indicate that the importer is GB Grant & Bowman Ltd. from Brentford, England, while the supplier is none other than Regent from Taiwan. The value of the goods declared in the false records and supplier accounts is lower than the real value of the goods, by comparing this data with the real transaction documents. An examination of the bank's documents (P/135) shows that in two of the containers, the cost of the goods is $93,590, while in the registration and in the false supplier's account, the amount is $69,580. The cost of the two additional containers, according to the real supplier's account, is $125,678 and not $93,436, as stated in the registration and the false supplier's account. The prosecution learned about the fact that it was a fake supplier's account from the supplier's own account, which contained spelling errors in the spelling of the name of the United Kingdom, in English.
The testimony of Yosef Bashi indicates that all the documents, including the Grant GB accounts, were given to him by Yehoshua Shlosh, who released the goods for defendant 1. Hence, these documents were forged by the defendant himself, and he was the one who gave them to the three, both in order to enable the release of the goods, and in order to bring about a reduction in the amount of the import taxes obligatory.
Since I have rejected the version of defendant 1 regarding his involvement in the release of the four containers, I also consider rejecting the version that he has nothing to do with the forgery of the documents and their use, when the reference is to the price certificates, the records and the false supplier's accounts. In light of the above, I consider that the defendant should also be convicted of offenses relating to forgery of documents and the use of forged documents.