Defendant 1's defense was based on an argument similar to that raised in the first indictment, according to which he believed that defendant 4 had paid the supplier outside of the letter of credit, and therefore, due to the failure to remove the reservations, there was no reason or need to activate the letter. As may be recalled, I rejected this claim, which was attributed to Haim Buchris in the first indictment, when, according to the claim of Defendant 1, Buchris allegedly paid the supplier, a regent from Taiwan, the consideration outside the framework of the letter of credit. This argument, which was also raised in the context of the second charge, is not only unreliable, it also has no logic, and it does not correspond to the reality on the ground. After all, there is no dispute that defendant 4 did not have the means to finance the transaction, and that the opening of the letter of credit was done through the financier, Calderon. If this is the case, how is it conceivable that defendant 4 could have paid the supplier outside the credit limit? Moreover, there is no dispute that the supplier approached the parties that acted against him time after time, in various ways, in order to receive the consideration, and if he received any response, his request was rejected. The supplier decided, in the end, to file a civil lawsuit in Israel, and there is no dispute that the version presented on behalf of defendant 4, in the same proceeding, was a patently false version. According to him, of defendant 4, he sought to protect defendant 1 and not to disclose his involvement in the transaction.
According to the documents in the file, namely the Schloss card and the OPCI card (P/394), the amount of NIS 150,000 was transferred from the OPCI account to the account of Nofar Dynamic Ltd., belonging to defendant 1, according to the bank transfer voucher, S/131. There is no doubt, and it has not been argued otherwise, that the payment of this sum does not constitute payment of commission or expenses for the release of the goods or the refund of import taxes, which indicates that defendant 1 received his share in the fraudulent acts.