Expert Warns of the Dangers of Trial by Public in the Customs Case, Said He Will Not Necessarily Receive Money 

DOK BETWEEN

JAKARTA - The emergence of the name of the Director General of Customs and Excise Djaka Budhi Utama in the alleged import bribery that dragged PT Blue Ray Cargo cannot be immediately interpreted as proof of criminal involvement. Mention in documents and trials must still be tested through valid evidence.

This was conveyed by Gautama Wiranegara as a specialist in counter-intelligence analysis, who also reminded the public to distinguish between narratives and proven legal facts.

"Once a code is associated with the number one, public attention is immediately directed there. In fact, the law does not work with symbols, but with evidence," Gautama told reporters in a written statement, Thursday, June 11.

Gautama said that one of the triggers for the emergence of public perception was the existence of the internal code "Sales 1" which was associated with Djaka's name in the Blue Ray Cargo internal document.

In fact, he said, the internal code is only an entry point for investigation and cannot be positioned as final evidence without being supported by other evidence that shows the receipt of money, approval, or possession of benefits.

He assessed that public attention was often easier to focus on big figures than on the technical facts that emerged in the trial.

"The biggest name always attracts more attention than an explanation of who the physical recipient of the money is, who the intermediary is, and how the actual flow of funds occurs," he said.

Gautama said that there were at least five factors that made the names of high-ranking officials quickly become the center of attention. Starting from the effect of internal codes, the use of the name of the leader as legitimacy, the dominance of technical operators in the field, media amplification, to the tendency to lock the narrative from the early stages of the investigation.

As a result, the public is at risk of being caught up in what he calls associative incrimination, a situation where a person is considered guilty simply because their name appears in a network, meeting, or narrative of the case.

This phenomenon, continued Gautama, is strengthened by what he termed as authority laundering through narrative contamination or authority laundering through narrative contamination.

In this pattern, the names of high officials are used in various operational stories, then strengthened by public reports and discussions until it looks as if it has become a proven legal fact.

"In fact, between being called, suspected, investigated, and proven are four different stages in the law," he said.

Therefore, Gautama asked the media to remain disciplined in distinguishing between the facts of the trial and interpretations. He reminded that being present at a meeting does not automatically mean agreeing, while mentioning names does not automatically indicate acceptance of money.

According to him, the main focus should remain on proving who received the money, who knew, who approved, and who enjoyed the benefits of the flow of funds.

"If the four basic questions have not been answered clearly, then there is only a narrative and a suspicion. The rule of law requires proof, not just perception," concluded Gautama.