SBG 4449/2016

This case involved whether there was evidence for a non-permitted trade in goods.

Background

The office of the public prosecution filed a case against a defendant before the court. It requested the court to penalize the defendant to trading in adulterated products.

The defendant denied the accusation made by the office and said that the products were not confiscated at his premises.

Decision

The court considered the documents of the case. The court said that the office had failed to provide a solid evidence against the defendant.

The court acquitted the defendant.

The court of appeal upheld the ruling.