The conviction is for only four offenses, since in the case of the first container there was no reduction in the purchase amount appearing in the sales account, even though the identity of the supplier was false, as detailed above.
- The second charge is attributed to defendants 1 and 4, which is a factual set similar to the one described
In the first charge. The main difference is that while in the first charge the orderer of the goods was Haim Buchris, in the second charge the commissioner is defendant 4, Avraham Kalamaro. We are dealing with ordering laptops from an American supplier called LA Computer Center The Comp Ltd. (hereinafter: the "Supplier"), at a cost of $113,050.
Just as I began by assessing the credibility of Defendant 1, and pointed out his poor credibility in my opinion, which is relevant to all the charges, so I see that the question of the reliability of Defendant 4, Avraham Kalmaro, should be addressed. The defendant tried to present himself as an innocent victim of defendant 1, who deceived him and took advantage of his financial distress. I am of the opinion that this description does not fit reality, and even if Defendant 1 is to be regarded as the living spirit in the framework of the affairs described in the indictment, there is no doubt in my view that Defendant 4 was not dragged after him and was not led by him to commit the criminal acts described in this indictment. Defendant 4 willingly cooperated with defendant 1, knowing that the consideration for the supplier had not been paid and would not be paid, while the goods supplied by him were released and sold to customers in Israel, without his consent and without the supplier's approval. Contrary to the claim of defendant 4, this is not a mere business dispute that should be clarified in the framework of a civil lawsuit, but rather it is a matter of planned acts with a great deal of thought on their side, in order to deceive the supplier and get the goods out of his hands fraudulently.