Corruption Court: Three PT Petro Energy Executives in LPEI Case, Legal Advisor: The Decision Does Not Reflect the Facts of the Trial

Photo: Special

JAKARTA - The Central Jakarta District Court (PN Jakpus) read the verdict in the alleged corruption case in the financing of exports of the Indonesian Export Financing Institution (LPEI) which ensnared three top executives of PT Petro Energy, namely Newin Nugroho (President Director), Susy Mira Dewi Sugiarta (Financial Director), and Jimmy Masrin (President Director of PT Caturkarsa Megatunggal and also President Commissioner of PT Petro Energy).

In the decision, the Chairperson of the Panel of Judges, Brelly Haskori, stated that Defendant I was proven to be legally and convincingly guilty of committing a corruption crime. "Declaring that Defendant I Newin Nugroho, Defendant II Susy Mira Dewi Sugiarta, and Defendant III Jimmy Marsin have been proven to be legally and convincingly guilty of committing a corruption crime together and continuing as the first indictment of the public prosecutor," said the chairperson of the panel of judges, Brelly Yuniar Dien Wardi Haskori, when reading the decision at the Central Jakarta Corruption Court, Tuesday, December 16.

The panel of judges also sentenced Defendant I to 4 years in prison and a fine of Rp. 250 million, with a 4-month imprisonment. and to Defendant II with a sentence of 6 years in prison and a fine of Rp. 250 million, with a 4-month imprisonment. Meanwhile, Defendant III was sentenced to 8 years in prison, a fine of Rp. 250 million, with a 4-month imprisonment, and a substitute for USD32,691,551.88, with a 4-year imprisonment.

The panel of judges stated that the defendants were proven to have violated Article 2 in conjunction with Article 18 of Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Corruption Crimes as amended by Law Number 20 of 2001 in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph (1) 1 in conjunction with Article 64 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code (KUHP).

The legal advisor to Defendant III Jimmy Masrin, Soesilo Aribowo, stated that the decision of the Panel of Judges did not reflect the entire facts revealed during the trial process. According to him, this case was judged incompletely because it focused more on one point of view, without considering the series of evidence and other statements that had been submitted at the trial.

"We respect the decision of the Panel of Judges, although we regret that the consideration of the decision does not adequately analyze the facts revealed at the trial. In this decision, the role of the Commissioner, President Director, and Director is treated as the same, although in fact and legally the role is very different," said Soesilo.

He added that the allegations related to the use of fictitious invoices, for example, are very technical and operational. If asked to Jimmy Masrin as a commissioner, of course the answer is not knowing, because it is outside his authority.

He emphasized that the ruling also did not touch on the aspects of bankruptcy, installment schemes, or installments that had been running, even though the facts showed that this case was actually a civil dispute. Furthermore, the state's losses were not explained concretely, both in terms of quantity and calculation. Therefore, when this case was forced into the criminal realm, it actually created many irregularities.

Previously, in a plea delivered before the panel of judges, Thursday, November 27, Jimmy Masrin emphasized that all criminal charges against him were not supported by the facts of the trial. He said that from the beginning, there was never any evil intention behind the actions in question. As a basis for defense, Jimmy explained three main points.

First, he emphasized that there was never an agreement or knowledge of the decision regarding the use of fictitious documents in the form of contracts and POs or invoices, especially related to the existence of a 1 percent commitment fee as conveyed by Defendant I. According to him, the claim is based only on one statement, namely from Defendant I alone, which is not supported by evidence or the appropriateness of the statement with the Witnesses who support the statement.

Second, the payment of financing facilities is still running smoothly and consistently according to the agreed schedule. Jimmy emphasized that financial obligations continue to be met in a timely manner, indicating no attempt to avoid or ignore commitments.

"Quite the contrary, all the steps taken are based on good faith to complete the obligation according to the applicable mechanism," he said.

Third, based on these two facts, it is clearly not found that there is an element of evil intent (mens rea) in the actions he has taken. Jimmy stated that all decisions taken were based on business considerations and commitment to business continuity, and were carried out within the agreement corridor. He also denied the accusation of enriching himself.

"Not a penny of money was obtained, it went into my personal pocket," he said.