Judge: Dakwan Perintangan Penyidikan Hasto Kristiyanto Tak Terbukti

The Secretary General of the PDI-P Hasto Kristiyanto was declared not proven to have intervened the investigation as charged by the Public Prosecutor (JPU).

This fact was conveyed by Judge Sunoto when reading the juridical analysis of the case of alleged bribery in the arrangement of the DPR's time (PAW) for the 2019-2024 period and the obstruction of Harun Masiku's investigation.

"So the element deliberately prevents, obstructs or thwarts directly or indirectly the investigation, prosecution or examination of suspects or witnesses or defendants in corruption cases is not fulfilled," said Judge Sunoto during a trial at the Jakarta Corruption Court, Friday, July 25.

The judge's decision regarding this matter is based on several considerations.

First, the efforts made by Hasto Kristiyanto in the series of cases of alleged bribery and obstruction were based on the decision of the PDIP DPP plenary meeting.

Hasto has also always been cooperative since being named a suspect on June 10, 2024. In fact, there is no systematic effort to become from the law

"There is no systematic attempt to avoid a legal process that is inconsistent with allegations of intentional deliberation," he said.

The panel of judges also considered that there was a significant time difference between the issuance of an investigation warrant (sprindik) on charges of obstruction, especially regarding the involvement of Hasto Kristiyanto.

"The act of ordering masiku to occur on January 8, 18.19 WIB, an investigation warrant that stipulates Harun Masiku on January 9, 2020, there is a significant difference in time before the official suspect's status is attached to Harun Masiku," he said.

In addition, the judge said that there was no evidence that the cellphone was submerged or drowned as charged by the prosecutor.

It is known, in the indictment, the prosecutor said that Kusnadi, who is a staff of the PDIP DPP secretariat, was said to have drowned his cell phone on orders from Hasto Kristiyanto.

"There is no evidence that the cellphone was submerged or drowned, the facts in the cellphone trial still exist, there is no element of intent, it cannot be proven legally," he said.

Therefore, the panel of judges assessed that Hasto should be acquitted of allegations of obstruction to the investigation in the indictment of the public prosecutor (JPU) from the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).

"Considering that based on Article 191 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code if the indictment is not proven, the defendant must be released so that the panel concluded that the defendant must be acquitted of the first indictment of violating Article 21 of the Corruption Eradication Commission in conjunction with Article 65 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code," said Judge Sunoto.

In this case, Hasto was charged by the Public Prosecutor (JPU) with 7 years in prison. In addition, the prosecutor also charged Hasto Kristiyanto with a fine of Rp. 600 million. If it is not paid, it will be replaced with a prison sentence of 6 months.

Hasto is known to have been charged together with advocate Donny Tri Istiqomah, former PDIP cadre Saeful Bahri, and Harun Masiku were charged with giving bribes of Rp 600 million to Wahyu Setiawan (KPU commissioner) in the 2019-2020 period.

This bribe is so that Wahyu seeks the KPU to approve the application of PAW for the South Sumatra Election Candidate (Sumsel) I on behalf of DPR members for the 2019-2024 period Riezky Aprilia to Harun Masiku.

Hasto was also charged with obstructing the investigation by ordering Harun, through the Aspiration House guard, Nur Hasan, to submerge Harun's cell phone into the water after the KPK OTT incident against Wahyu Setiawan.

Not only Harun Masiku's cellphone, Hasto is also said to have ordered his aide, Kusnadi, to drown his cell phone in anticipation of forced attempts by KPK investigators.

Hasto was charged with Article 21 and Article 5 paragraph (1) letter a or Article 13 of Law (UU) Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption as amended and supplemented by Law Number 20 of 2001 in conjunction with Article 65 paragraph (1) and Article 55 paragraph (1) 1 in conjunction with Article 64 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code.