As for defendant 4, I have already determined that his attempt to evade responsibility for the release of the goods without paying any consideration to the supplier is not reliable in my opinion, and based on the totality of the evidence, it appears that this defendant was in the secret of matters and that he received the goods, knowing that the supplier came out with his hands on his head. I do not accept the version of defendant 4, according to which he transferred the consideration for the goods to defendant 1, and it seems that he was aware of the fact that M.R.L.D. was presented as the entity that ordered the goods and purchased them, while he himself was in contact with the supplier, on behalf of OPCI. There is a reason in the plaintiff's statements, according to which the presentation of the matter in this manner is intended to prevent a legal rivalry between the supplier and OPCI and Avi Kalamaro, when the demand for payment for the goods will be utilized, in due course. However, I do not see fit to draw a conclusion as to the duty of defendant 1 and defendant 4 in this matter.
The goods were transferred to OPCI by means of invoice No. 004 of Schloss dated April 30, 1999. There is no dispute that this is an invoice in which the amount appearing is false, and according to Elhanan Tenenbaum, this is intended to reach a tax appeal amount of 0. This emerges from the entries in the Schloss company binder, P/207, in which the correct calculation appears, including the sum of NIS 544,240.32, while the amended sum – NIS 446,277.78 – appears in Tenenbaum's handwriting. There can be no doubt that defendant 1 knew that this was a fictitious invoice, since he was aware of the details of the order and was aware of the price of the goods, which was agreed upon with the supplier. The reduced sum that appears in the Schloss invoice was also not paid by OPCI, and I reject the version of defendant 4 in this regard. No evidence was presented to me indicating that the consideration was paid to Schloss, and the documents presented to the court (original checks and transaction sheets in OPCI's account) indicate that consideration was not transferred in this way to Schloss.