There is no dispute that the letter of credit in favor of the supplier was opened at the initiative of defendant 1, through the bank account of the Lantex company owned by Aharon Calderon, just as it was done in the first charge. The prosecution claims that a promise was given by defendant 1 to Calderón that the letter of credit would not be honored by the bank due to various reservations contained therein. In practice, the supplier did not meet the requirements of the letter of credit and therefore no consideration was paid to him for the goods he supplied. Here, too, I am unable to determine that the reservations were deliberately inserted, so that the supplier would not be able to comply with them, which would lead to non-respect for the letter of credit. Although there is a basis for suspicion that this was the case, in view of the similarity in the conduct of Defendant 1 in the first and second charges, and in view of the testimonies of Calderon and Elhanan Tenenbaum. I find it difficult to adopt the thesis that it is possible to rely on the introduction of reservations, which are legitimate in themselves, as a basis for fraudulently removing the goods from the supplier. It seems to me unreasonable to assume that the supplier will send the goods to the customer together with the bills of lading, before he has made sure that he is able to meet all the conditions and that the letter of credit issued in his favor will be honored.
However, and as I determined with respect to the first charge, there is no doubt in my opinion that the goods were released by defendant 1, with the knowledge and consent of defendant 4 without any intention to pay for them, when in fact there is no real dispute that the supplier did not receive the consideration, in whole or in part.
The order documents included M.R.L.D. As the orderer of the goods from the supplier, for OPCI, which belongs to defendant 4. The prosecution claims that M.R.L.D. is a shell company belonging to defendant 1. After examining the evidence on this issue, I came to the conclusion that M.R.L.D. is a company without any business activity. The company did not file income tax returns and there is no evidence that it paid taxes of any kind. The company's registered shareholders are Joseph Heller and Yaakov Schorr-Oxenkrog, who did not testify at the trial and did not say anything about the company's business activities. Therefore, it is very puzzling that this company was presented as the orderer of the goods for OPCI, which raises the suspicion that the company's placement at the forefront was intended to obscure the traces of the fraud and fraud. The prosecution considers the fact that in the order document (P/366) M.R.L.D. appears as the intended buyer, as a fraud towards the supplier, since it is a "misrepresentation as if the buyer is M.R.L.D. It is a real commercial entity, and it is as if Avi Kalmaro, who operates on its behalf, is authorized to do so." Even if there is substance to this claim, I do not believe that it constitutes the commission of an offense of fraudulent receipt, as claimed by the prosecution, since it is stated in the letter of invitation that the company operates for OPCI, and there is no dispute that the ordering person is defendant 4, who is behind this company. It is also worth noting that even if there is truth in the fact that the Principal is a company without any commercial activity, this does not necessarily indicate that the letter of credit will not be honored, since it is an undertaking by the opening bank, regardless of the identity of the orderer. Therefore, I do not see any reason for the conviction of the defendants, as far as the presentation of M.R.L.D. is concerned. as a buyer in this transaction. As stated, I did not consider convicting the defendants for the drafting of the letter of credit either, since I was not convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the wording was done with intention, with the aim of preventing the letter of credit from being honored.