Hotman Paris Questions Antam's Gold Corruption Case That Ensnared Budi Said

JAKARTA - Hotman Paris Hutapea has a problem with the legal status of his client, Budi Said, in the case of corruption in the sale and purchase of gold by PT Aneka Tambang (Antam) Tbk which cost the state Rp1.1 trillion. He even said that the determination of the crazy rich suspect in Surabaya from the start was strange.

This was conveyed after the Corruption Court at the Central Jakarta District Court (PN) held a follow-up hearing on the alleged corruption in the sale and purchase of gold from PT Aneka Tambang (Antam) Tbk on Tuesday, December 3.

Hotman assessed that his client had won criminal and civil lawsuits and stated that Budi was a victim of fraud by Antam employees.

"This is the strangest case in the world. 12 criminal judges and 9 civil judges previously stated that Budi Said was a victim of fraud. The verdict is all inkrah, it is final," Hotman said in his statement quoted on Thursday, December 5.

"Suddenly, now, in the same case, Budi Said is instead considered a victim, but the perpetrator," he continued.

Another thing that caught Hotman's attention was the fact that the 1.1 tonne discount gold was promised had never been received by Budi Said. The Supreme Court's (MA) decision through the District Court also stated that the item had never been received by his client.

"Because the gold has never been given, it means there has been no state loss, does it mean there is no corruption?" said Hotman.

This condition made Hotman assess that there was an attempt to criminalize. "It seems that this case was deliberately raised to prevent Budi Said from winning the execution of a civil decision in which he won," he said.

Meanwhile, Budi's trial presented three expert witnesses. They are corruption experts from the University of Indonesia (UI), state financial experts from UI and civil experts from Airlangga University.

The three also mentioned allegations of criminalization. This opinion was conveyed by a criminal law expert from the University of Indonesia (UI), Chairul Huda who said that Budi's case was actually a civil matter that was forced to become a crime.

"The sale and purchase of gold has been agreed upon by the price and amount, then it has been paid. However, the gold is considered insufficient, then it is sued civilly, confirmed by civil the amount of gold is lacking, punished again. But the buyer is even subject to a crime. The crime is corruption again," Chairul said after the trial.

Another expert witness, Dian Puji Simatupang as a state financial expert from UI, said that a subsidiary of a state-owned company such as Antam should comply with a limited company law. Including, SEMA Number 10 of 2020 which states that the loss of a subsidiary of a state-owned company cannot be considered a state loss if there are no state facilities.

Dian also emphasized that based on the Constitutional Court's decision No.25/PUU-XIV/2016, state losses cannot be estimated. "This means that there must really be evidenced to be cash flows that cause state losses, it cannot only be estimated," he concluded.