The Behavior Of Former Officials In Sorong Is A Little Different, The City Government Can Take It To The Legal Field To Report Asset Embezzlement
The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has asked the Sorong City Government (Pemkot), Southwest Papua Province to immediately curb state assets that are still controlled by former officials.This came to the attention of the Head of the Coordination and Supervision Task Force for Region V KPK, Dian Patria after receiving reports that a number of assets in the form of vehicles, official houses and laptops were still held by former regional officials."I ask the Sorong City Government to immediately control these assets, if necessary, take firm action," explained Dian in Sorong, as reported by Antara, Thursday, July 4.Dian admitted that the Sorong City Government's efforts to curb these assets were through a negotiation system with the person concerned, but for years the former asset holder has not returned the asset."We will continue to encourage the Sorong City Government to take strict measures, if necessary, to reach the legal realm by making a criminal report of asset embezzlement," said Dian.Dian said that two assets had been reported, namely a plot of land in front of the Court Office and the official residence opposite the Sorong Mayor's Office."If there is no good faith from former regional officials to return assets, then there is no reason to take legal action. Because no matter how small the value of the assets are controlled, the status is still regional property," said Dian.According to him, even though the asset value is small or large, it must be returned after the term of office is complete because the impact leads to criminal sanctions."Just because the contents of the house such as chairs, tables, magicoms and temples are lost after the term of office is complete, the person concerned can be imprisoned for three years. Therefore, be careful with assets that are not returned, don't take it lightly, don't let this happen again," he asserted.
He emphasized that asset returns were not immediately followed by returns from the government. There is also no other reason to mention that the assets are still controlled by the approval and position of the previous leadership."Don't feel that you have received a position from the leadership, that's wrong. Especially if someone is willing to return the assets, but on condition that there is compensation for the cost of improvement, it is even more wrong," he said.