MA Pangkas Sentenced To Corn Seed Corruption In NTB From 8 Years To 4 Years In Prison

The prosecutor's photo-team archive with the assistance of prison officials documents the process of executing the detention of Aryanto Prametu (center), convicted of corruption in the procurement of corn seeds/ANTARA HO NTB Prosecutor's Office

The Supreme Court through the Judicial Review Decision Number: 715 PK/Pid.Sus/2023 cut Aryanto Prametu's sentence, one of the convicts of corruption in the 2017 corn seed procurement program in West Nusa Tenggara, from eight years in the cassation rate decision to four years in prison.

Spokesperson for the NTB Prosecutor's Office, Efrien Saputera, said that his party had not yet received any information regarding the Supreme Court's decision.

"There is no information about that. Usually we first receive the excerpts," said Efrien, quoted by ANTARA, Tuesday, September 26.

Meanwhile, Aryanto Prametu through his legal advisor, Emil Siain, confirmed that his party had received an excerpt from the PK decision which was set on September 7, 2023. "Yes, that's right, then excerpt it," said Emil.

In addition to punishment, Emil confirmed that the Supreme Court as a judicial institution that examined the legal application of a case also changed the fine from Rp400 million, subsidiary to three months in prison to Rp200 million, subsidiary to three months in prison.

The Supreme Court in the PK decision also stipulated that Aryanto Prametu pay compensation for state losses amounting to Rp7.87 billion, subsidiary to one year in prison in accordance with the cassation decision.

The Supreme Court decided this by granting the PK's request and canceling the cassation decision by self-trialing Aryanto Prametu's case.

The Supreme Court in the decision that tried the case on its own stated that the actions of the Director of PT Sinta Agro Mandiri (SAM) were proven to have violated Article 2 paragraph (1) in conjunction with Article 18 of Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption as amended by Law Number 20 of 2001 in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph (1) 1st of the Criminal Code.

However, Emil said his client was not satisfied with the PK decision and planned to return to extraordinary legal remedies for the second time to the Supreme Court.

"It should be free because the replacement money charged to our client has been returned. Why is it now being imposed again? So, there is our plan for another PK," he said.

Responding to the receipt of a PK decision by the convict, Mataram District Court spokesman Kelik Trimargo said that his party had not received official information from the Supreme Court.

"Indeed, in the rules, the parties will first be notified through an excerpt of the verdict. For a complete decision that will be officially sent to the court, from us, we will forward it to the parties," said Kelik.

Regarding the plan to apply for the second PK from the convict, he said that this was not regulated in the criminal procedural law rules.

"In the rules, this PK can only be submitted once from the parties. Once by the defendant or convict, another from the public prosecutor," he said.