Not The First Time Duet Pinangki Prosecutors And Anita Kolopaking Have Taken Care Of Annas Maamun's Clemency

JAKARTA - The panel of judges said that the duet of Attorney Pinangki Sirna Malasari and Anita Kolopaking was not the first time this had happened in case management.

Because, the two of them had worked together when handling the clemency of the former Riau Governor, Annas Maamun. This was revealed when the panel of judges read out several considerations related to the verdict against Pinangki Sirna Malasari.

"Considering that in the chat communication using the WhatsApp application between the defendant and Anita Dewi Anggraeni Kolopaking in serial numbers 1 to 14 November 26, 2019 at 6.13pm-7.50pm, the defendant's conversation with witness Anita Dewi Anggraeni Kolopaking was found regarding Annas Maamun's clemency," he said. judges at trial at the Corruption Court, Jakarta, Monday, February 8.

With this evidence, the panel of judges concluded that the two of them were accustomed to handling legal matters. Including cases in the Prosecutor's Office.

"This conversation proves that apart from being related to Djoko Tjandra, the defendant used to take care of cases with witness Anita Dewi Anggraeni Kolopaking, especially in relation to the Attorney General's Office and the Supreme Court," he said.

Previously it was reported, the panel of judges sentenced the defendant Attorney Pinangki Sirna Malasari to 10 years in prison. In addition, Pinangki was also fined Rp. 600 million, a subsidiary of 6 months in prison.

Pinangki is considered to have committed a criminal offense that complies with Article 11 of the Corruption Eradication Law, Article 3 of the Law on Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering, and Article 15 in conjunction with Article 13 of the Corruption Eradication Law.

In deciding the verdict, the panel of judges considered several things. For example, Pinangki's work was burdensome.

Thus, Pinangki is considered not to support the government's efforts to eradicate corruption. In fact, he was also considered to be convoluted in giving testimony at trial, not admitting his guilt, and enjoying the proceeds of crime.

Meanwhile, for mitigating matters, the defendant was polite in the trial, the defendant was the backbone of the family, the defendant had a small child aged four years, the defendant had never been convicted.