Therefore, I consider accepting Tenenbaum's testimony regarding his criminal involvement in Schloss and other businesses, in cooperation with Defendant 1. At the same time, I am of the opinion that his statements regarding the conduct of defendant 1 are credible, and factual findings can be based on them. The same is true of Tenenbaum's testimony regarding the manner in which defendant 1 used Schloss, and I trust his version, according to which he was not involved at all in releasing the goods that are the subject of the second indictment in the name of Schloss, vis-à-vis the customs brokers and the other parties concerned. It should be noted, in this context, that defendant 1 admitted that he handled the release of the first container that is the subject of the first indictment on the basis of records submitted on behalf of Schloss, and that he was the one who handed over the release documents to the customs broker from Manfield. This fact strengthens my position that defendant 1 also released the goods that are the subject of the second indictment through Schloss.
The letter of credit stipulates a condition according to which the supplier may present the documents to the bank only 15 days after the date of dispatch, and since this is an air shipment, as opposed to sea transportation, the goods were released even before the documents were presented. Apparently, at that stage, the supplier did not suspect that a plan was hatched to defraud him, and the goods were released by means of a license bearing the date 25 April 1999 (P/43), in which the name of the importer appeared "Schloss - International Trade Ltd". Attached to this register was a bill of lading, according to which the goods were sent to Israel by air freight from the supplier, to M.R.L.D. For OPCI.
Despite the fact that the goods had been released, on April 25, 1999, the Basel branch of Bank Leumi reported to the bank's management, on May 11, 1999, that the person who opened the letter of credit refused to accept the documents due to reservations that had not been removed. There is no doubt in my heart that the party behind the refusal to remove the reservations is none other than defendant 1, whose refusal ensured that the opening bank would not be entitled to honor the letter of credit, and to provide the consideration to the supplier. At this point in time, the existence of two facts is indisputable: one is that the goods were cleared from customs, and the other is that no consideration was paid to the supplier. There is also no real dispute that the goods were released by defendant 1 and transferred to Avi Kalmaro, for sale on behalf of OPCI to Bezeq.