Inactive Denpasar Head Of Culture And Education Tried At The Bali Corruption Court

DENPASAR - The Denpasar Corruption Court, Bali tried the inactive Denpasar Head of Culture Service I Gusti Ngurah, Bagus Mataram, in a virtual trial.

I Gusti Ngurah Bagus Mataram was tried for a corruption case in the procurement of goods in the form of gifts and offerings for traditional villages worth IDR 1 billion.

"Today, Thursday, the trial of the case on behalf of I Gusti Ngurah Bagus Mataram was continued with the agenda of reading the indictment by the public prosecutor. On this charge, the defendant accompanied by his legal counsel did not file an exception", said Head of the Denpasar District Attorney's Intelligence Section, I Putu Eka Suyantha, quoted by Antara, Thursday, 18 November.

Eka Suyantha said on the charge, the defendant through his legal advisor did not file an exception and continued the trial on Thursday, November 25, with the agenda of examining witnesses.

In this case, the defendant is known to be involved in an alleged corruption case in the procurement of goods in the form of aci-aci and offerings for traditional villages, division of administrative areas, subak (traditional irrigation/irrigation system for rice fields) in urban villages throughout Denpasar City in 2019-2020.

There is also a state financial loss due to the defendant's actions amounting to IDR 1,022,258,750, as stated in the Audit Report on the Calculation of State Financial Losses from the BPKP Representative of the Province of Bali.

"In the indictment prepared by the Public Prosecutor, there is an alternative subsidiary, namely First Article 2 paragraph 1 subsidiary Article 3 or Second Article 12 letter H in conjunction with Article 18 of the Law on the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption in conjunction with Article 64 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code", said Suyantha.

The defendants as PA and PPK are suspected of not implementing the provisions for the procurement of government goods or services and effective and efficient management of state or regional finances.

In addition, the defendant in his capacity as PPK did not make a general procurement plan, divided activities, made direct appointments that were not by applicable regulations and made fictitious procurement documents.