Febrie Adriansyah's Legal Representative Criticizes the Attorney General's Investigation, Reminds of the Supreme Court Decision No. 90 Regarding TPPU

JAKARTA - The Advokat Febrie Adriansyah team asked the Attorney General's Office to comply with the Constitutional Court (MK) Decision Number 90/PUU-XIII/2015 in investigating alleged money laundering (TPPU) cases that ensnared his client.

Legal representatives consider that the investigation of alleged money laundering crimes must have a clear construction of the original crime or predicate crime. They remind that the legal process should not be imposed only to pursue the suspicion.

"The Supreme Court's decision No. 90 clearly states that TPPU is a follow-up crime. The original crime must be preceded. What is not mandatory is that the original crime is proven first until there is a final and binding decision," said Febri Diansyah as a legal team for Febrie Adriansyah, Monday, August 10.

According to Febri, this issue is important to test the basis for the determination of Febrie as a suspect by the Attorney General's Office. The legal team also wants to ensure that the criminal investigation process for the original crime and TPPU has been carried out in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations.

Furthermore, Febri referred to the provisions in Law Number 8 of 2010 concerning the Prevention and Eradication of TPPU, especially Articles 69, 74, and 75.

Article 69 regulates the criminal act of not having to be proven first to conduct investigations, prosecutions, and examinations of TPPU cases. Meanwhile, Article 74 regulates the authority of the TPPU investigation by the original criminal investigator and Article 75 regulates the merger of the original criminal investigation with TPPU if sufficient initial evidence is found.

"Articles 69, 74, and 75 cannot be read alone. There is a legal construction that must be seen as a whole, especially how the original crime was committed, who the investigator was, when the initial evidence of TPPU was found, and when the investigation of the two was combined," he said.

Not only the MK's decision, the Febrie legal team also highlighted the study of the Financial Transaction Reporting and Analysis Center (PPATK) entitled the Authority to Investigate Money Laundering Crimes where the Investigation of the Original Crime was Conducted by Other Investigators.

In the study, the legal team said, the merger of the original criminal investigation and TPPU is possible when the investigator finds sufficient evidence of the origin of the TPPU when conducting the original criminal investigation.

Febrie's lawyer, Hermawanto, then questioned whether the mechanism had been applied in his client's case.

"The question we have is whether in the Febrie Adriansyah case the process is also like that. Is the criminal investigation of the origin of the investigation, then in the investigation process there is enough evidence of the existence of TPPU, then the investigator combines the investigation," said Hermawanto.

According to him, this does not mean that his party asks for the TPPU investigation to wait until the criminal act is obtained by a final and binding decision.

"This is not a question of whether TPPU must wait for the original criminal act to be decided first. The Supreme Court's decision is clear that it is not mandatory to be proven first. What we question is how the investigation process of the original criminal act, who has the authority to investigate TPPU, when the initial evidence of TPPU was found, and on what basis then the investigation was combined," concluded Hermawanto.