Criminal Law Expert Talks About Men's Rea At The Trial Of Alleged False Pledge

The trial for the alleged false oath case with the defendant Ike Farida was held by the South Jakarta District Court (PN), Thursday, October 31.

At the trial scheduled for proof today, the Prosecutor presented a criminal law expert, Suhandi Cahaya. In his testimony, Suhandi explained the meaning of Article 242 of the Criminal Code in the case of alleged false oaths.

"That what can be convicted by that article is a personal person or person ordering his power of attorney," said Suhandi in front of the trial.

Suhandi also explained that the doctrine of the elements of punishment must have opzet (intentionally), actus reus (error) and mens rea (evil intention).

"So I explained earlier in front of the trial, that he said that if I said it was a mens rea, I would give a summons three times in a row for three weeks, the second reported a crime in SP3 (Investigation Termination Order), the third company (development) left the money to the East Jakarta District Court and then denied that they did not want to take it," Suhandi told reporters during the trial break.

"The fourth he sued civil, the fifth was PK (Reconsideration). Wasn't it Mens rea? They said it was a legal effort, but it attacked them in various ways," he added.

Regarding whether the criminal element in Article 242 of the Criminal Code is fulfilled or not in this case, he admitted that he fully left it to the Panel of Judges.

"Regarding whether Article 242 is fulfilled, let the Assembly judge. Likewise, whether or not (the defendant Ike Farida) is guilty, let the Assembly decide," said Suhandi.

At the previous trial which was held on Wednesday (30/10/2024), the Public Prosecutor (JPU) presented three witnesses.

They are Angga Yuda Prawira from the DKI Jakarta BPN Regional Office, Faturohman from the East Jakarta Makassar KUA, as well as digital forensic expert witnesses, Saji Purwanto.

In front of the Panel of Judges, Saji admitted that he was the party who examined the cellphone evidence (HP) confiscated from witness Nurindah MM Simbolon as the former defendant's attorney.

Saji explained that the HP examination was aimed at knowing the conversation between Nurindah and Ike Farida in the February-December 2020 period regarding the application for a Review memory (PK) and the novum oath trial.

"I checked the Whatsapp Group (WAG) conversation between Nurindah and the group members who discussed the review memory application and the novum oath trial," Saji said when answering the prosecutor's question.

Saji revealed, in the WAG conversation, it was illustrated that Nurindah routinely provided reports, asking for opinions and approval regarding the steps taken in connection with the PK submission and the novum oath trial.

"Nurindah coordinates and asks for approval from someone called Sensei (in Japanese means teacher). Sensei is a defendant," he said.

Ike Farida's attorney, Agustrias Andika, said there was a difference between the conversation being examined by Saji and the defendant's side.

"Why is there a difference in the content of the conversation between what you are experts conveying and the data we have, are you an expert in changing the contents of the conversation?" asked Agustrias.

"What Ike Farida's attorney holds is only in the form of a resummation, while what the expert conveys is a quote from the conversation that fits the original," Saji replied.

After that, the Panel of Judges asked the experts to show directly the full content of the conversation between Nurindah and the defendant.

Meanwhile, witness Angga Yuda Prawira said that the DKI Jakarta BPN Regional Office's Letter dated November 27, 2015 was a reply to a letter from the Isdawati Lawyer's Office dated November 11, 2015.

"This letter was used as evidence of Ike Farida's default lawsuit against the 2015 developer and was used as new evidence or novum by Ike Farida when she submitted a request for judicial review in 2020," said Angga.

Meanwhile, witness Faturohman said that Ike Farida's marriage record in 1995 did not include an asset-separate marriage agreement with her husband, a foreign national.

However, it was only in 2017 that the defendant registered the marriage agreement deed at the Makasar District KUA, East Jakarta.

Interviewed during the trial break, Agustrias said the witnesses presented at the previous trial had provided false information.

"The statement from the BPN explained that regarding the BPN letter sent in 2015 which later became the object of this case, it was stated that the letter was genuine and correct. Next, the letter also proves that related to the examination of the apartment built by PT EPH until 2022 there is no retail permit. This means that there is no decree from the governor," said Agustrias.

"So the statements from witnesses from the reporting party and the reported party or victim yesterday were false statements at the trial stating that since 2020 they already have a Governor's Decree. In fact, it is only 2022," he added.