On the other hand, the prosecution presented ample circumstantial evidence, indicating that the goods were taken out, and in fact stolen from the supplier's authority, without any consideration being paid for them, and without any intention of making any consideration, even if only partial, available to the supplier. According to the terms of the letter of credit, M.R.L.D. (the order of the goods) appeared as usual on the air bill of lading and one in whose name the supplier's account must be issued. Another condition was that Schloss would appear in the air cargo bill as an informed entity. As for Schloss, the prosecution claims that it was a straw company that was used by defendant 1 for his various needs, and mainly for the purpose of submitting records to customs, while presenting the company as an importer.
After considering the various pieces of evidence regarding Schloss, I came to the conclusion that it was indeed a company with no real business activity, which was used by defendant 1 for various activities, some of which are described in the indictment. The testimony of Mrs. Raymonda Fischer indicates that she established the company at the request of Elhanan Tenenbaum, but did not carry out any business within its framework. Schloss's bank account was inactive and no income was received from the company's activities. As appears from the evidence material, Schloss's activity amounted to the submission of import licenses and the issuance of invoices to the companies that received the goods that were the subject of the registrations. According to these registers, large transactions were made, but no money was paid to the VAT authorities for them. There is no dispute that Schloss did not engage in imports at all and never served as an importer of goods, and its involvement, as stated, was limited to the submission of various licenses and documents for the purpose of releasing goods. I am convinced that this activity was carried out on behalf of Defendant 1 and for his purposes, without any connection to Tenenbaum's activity. Even though Steinenbaum is a criminal with a pocket of vermin hanging behind him, I did not find that his testimony should be rejected. He declared that after his return from captivity in Lebanon, he disclosed, as part of an agreement with the authorities, all the offenses he had committed in the past, with the understanding that he would not be held accountable for them. It is reasonable to assume that he would want to disclose the entirety of his criminal activity in order to gain immunity from prosecution, and would not risk partial exposure, which would enable the state to renounce the agreement that was entered into with him.