Adv. Gill Nadel, Moran Shmilovitz
Recently a verdict was issued by the Magistrate's Court of Tel Aviv discussing the harshness of punishment for those convicted of tax offenses.
The case involved a fashion company that imported clothing from China. Within this import, the company evaded payment of customs at a sum of 2,176,614 NIS, by declaring acquisition prices lower than the prices that it actually paid the suppliers in China.
Therefore, an indictment was filed against the company and its four managers for evading import tax payment, filing false reports, giving a false declaration, misleading the customs official, preparing and presenting a certificate claiming to be an authentic invoice of sale, and failure to keep accounting books as required.
The four managers confessed as part of a plea bargain, and therefore the court discussed only the issue of their sentence.
The court ruled that to set the punishment of three out of four of the managers, the following considerations should be taken into account: the severity and scope of the crimes, the fact that the managers wrote on each of the 116 reports a false cost for the imported goods, the period of time in which the crimes were committed, the amount of customs lost from the public treasury and the means that the managers used in order to hide the incomes.
The court ruled that these considerations justify a harsh punishment. However, the court listed the considerations that stood in defense of the managers, including the fact that two of the managers were not shareholders in the corporations nor were they dominant directors, and the fact that all the managers had no prior convictions.
Other considerations which the court weighed in defense of the managers were their confessions, which the court saw as a way of taking responsibility, and showing willingness to bear the consequences for their actions and recognizing the seriousness of their deeds. The court also saw positively the fact that the manger’s confession saved a lot of time and resources for the judicial process.
Additionally, the managers returned most of the money that they owed, which the court ruled as an expression of regret which lead the court to lighten their sentences. Further more, the court ruled that one could not ignore the fact that the evidentiary basis of the case was problematic.
In regard of the fourth manger the court ruled that the his sentence should be discussed separately, since he was severely handicapped and suffered from cerebral palsy, and that despite that he managed to function independently and succeeded in gaining an education, and in integrating in the corporation as a financial manager. The court ruled that his case was indeed like the others and that in ordinary circumstances the court would have issued the same sentence to all the managers according to the severity of their actions and the circumstances of the case. However in the fourth manager’s case, the circumstances were exceptional and unusual. The court ruled that the leniency in his sentencing will not send out a negative message to the public, due to his disability and his severe medical condition.
The court sentenced the three managers between 4 to 12 months in prison, in addition to a suspended sentence, and a financial fine.
The fourth manager was sentenced to parole and a fine of 70,000 NIS.
CA 5127/06 State of Israel v. Goal Organza Company et al. Issued 2.5.10.
Representatives of sides: for the state- Adv. Shlomi Klimian, for the company- Amnon Goel, for the managers, Adv. Albert Harel, Adv. Amit Bar Tov, Adv. Dorot, Adv. Ziton, Adv. Yisrael Pepper.
עדכוני מכס ורגולציה
