Regarding The Alleged Outflow Of Asabri's Funds For Spending Bitcoin, Heru Hidayat's Attorney: The Prosecutor's Opinion And Makes A Joke

JAKARTA - Director of Investigation at the Junior Attorney General for Special Crimes Febrie Ardiansyah accused PT Asabri of alleged corruption in the form of bitcoin. The legal advisor team of PT Trada Alam Minera Heru Hidayat Kresna Hutauruk also considered the statement to be very dangerous and led to opinion.

"I need to emphasize that our client has no connection and has never invested in Bitcoin. We strongly object to the statement of the Director of Investigation by the Attorney General regarding bitcoin investments relating to our clients", said Kresna in Jakarta, Friday, April 23.

Statements by the AGO in various media also stated that "it will continue to delve deeper into the transaction". This, he said, showed that Dirdik had made a statement that smelled of ambiguous opinion and was still very premature and slander that had been mentioned in public.

"The statement is not yet clear what the exact value of the transaction is, and who is the party who invested. The Director of the Investigation only mentions the names of the suspects who were charged by ML without confirming which suspect bought the bitcoin. Very dangerous, because it leads to public opinion as to if our clients are indeed investing. bitcoin. Even during the inspection, our clients were never asked about bitcoin investments", said Kresna.

His party also felt that he objected to the confiscation of the tanker and other vessels, which the AGO had always been talking about belonged to his client in connection with the Asabri case.

"In fact, it is very clear that the purchase of these vessels is an investment from a Japanese company (Mitsui) and comes from a bank loan. Even now it is still bank collateral. Please also note that the ship has been owned by Trada Alam Minera Tbk since 2012. Long before the client entered to Trada Alam Minera Tbk in 2017", he said.

Regarding the process of confiscating the tanker's assets, his party suspects that the prosecutor has violated Article 39 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Law No. 31/1999 on Corruption Eradication which specifically regulates the protection of third parties.

For example, in the Decision of the Supreme Court Number 1731K/Pdt/2011 affirming that the object of the credit guarantee which has been encumbered with a mortgage that has been issued a Certificate of Mortgage, has inherent rights and interests and must receive legal protection.

The Attorney General's Office, he continued, as the party with the authority to investigate and trace assets should be able to easily see where the funds for the purchase of the ship came from. The Adhyaksa Corps is also obliged to prove the flow of funds related to Asabri towards the purchase of the ship.

"Given the fact, the purchase of the ship came from a Japanese company investment (Mitsui) that existed long before our client entered to Trada Alam Minera Tbk. Obviously, it has nothing to do with the Asabri case. As advocates, we support the law enforcement process against the Asabri case so that later At the time of trial our client can explain that he is innocent. But if the investigation process is messy like this, then as part of the taxpayer, to be honest, I am very disappointed. Lots of our client's rights have been violated by the investigators of the Attorney General's Office under the command of the Director of Investigation. Including the right to receive information on why their assets were confiscated", he explained.

"Even though this case is still in the investigation stage and has no permanent legal force. If the confiscation is carried out for the sake of replacement money, the Attorney General's Office must wait for this case to have permanent legal force first. That's the mandate of the law, don't enforce the law by breaking the law", he said again.

Meanwhile, Prosecutor's Observer, Fajar Trio Winarko, criticized the Director of Investigation's statement. He said, in the law enforcement process, actually not making slanderous statements and trying to lead public opinion is something that is forbidden.

"Back in the era of the late Attorney-General Basrief Arief, information on investigations was always one door, namely through Head of the Legal Information Center or directly from Attorney General for Special Crimes. Unlike today, the same class as the Director of Investigation can talk to the media but statements issued to have the potential to distort the investigation process. This is a danger that it could disrupt the law enforcement process. which is just, and leads to slander", said Fajar.

He also hopes that the Attorney General will evaluate various statements of the Director of Investigation so that he will be wiser in releasing public information so as not to cause a commotion.

"So that the information conveyed has no potential as if the party who is still a suspect is as if it was certain that he was guilty before it was submitted in court. Moreover, the opinion is not certain whether it is right or wrong", he said.