21 M Money Mentioned in the Trial, Expert Warns KPK Not to Change BC1 Code into a Public Verdict

Illustration. (Photo: Dok. Antara)

JAKARTA - The news about the alleged flow of Rp21 billion to the Director General of Customs and Excise, Djaka Budhi Utama, in the Blue Ray Cargo case hearing again drew public attention.

However, counter-intelligence and customs law analyst, R. Gautama Wiranegara, reminded the public and the media not to rush to change the facts of the trial, which are still layered, into legal conclusions.

According to Gautama, the trial on June 12, 2026 did reveal John Field's testimony regarding the BC1, BC2, and BC3 codes. In the construction of the prosecutor's question, the BC1 code is associated with the Director General of Customs, with a value of Rp3 billion per month for seven months or a total of Rp21 billion.

"But what must be read carefully is: John confirms the code and explanation he received, not stating that he saw the money received directly by the Director General," Gautama said in his written analysis to VOI, Monday, June 15.

He assessed that in criminal cases involving codes, intermediaries, and bureaucratic structures, one word "true" should not be read flat.

"It's true that the code exists, it's true that Orlando explained it that way, it's true that John believed the money was up to, or it's true that the final recipient actually received it? That's four different layers legally," he said.

Gautama also reminded the fact of the previous trial on May 20, 2026. In that trial, Orlando Hamonangan was said to have explained the existence of envelopes with code numbers 1, 2, and 3.

However, according to Gautama, Orlando is said to not know who the final recipient of code 1 is. Even the envelope of code 1 is said to have been handed over to Rizal.

"This is an important fact. If on June 12 John mentioned the BC1 code based on Orlando's explanation, while on May 20 Orlando himself did not know the final recipient of code 1 and the envelope was in Rizal, then the chain of evidence is not complete," said Gautama.

According to him, the two facts of the trial must be read together so that the public is not lost. He also emphasized that the media has the right to report on the facts of the trial. However, he reminded that the news did not condense the facts that were still layered into a single conclusion.

"The problem is not that the media reports the trial. The problem is if the public gets the impression that the Director General has accepted, even though the final proof of acceptance still has to be tested," he said.

Three Risks of Counter Intelligence

In the perspective of counterintelligence, Gautama sees three phenomena that need to be wary of. First, evidentiary compression, that is, the compression of the actual evidence layers into a single conclusion.

Second, authority laundering, namely the use of the name of high officials to give legitimacy to the request for money by operational parties. Third, narrative laundering, namely the change of statements in the trial or BAP which still needs to be tested as a public narrative as if it were final.

"Big names and big numbers are strong for news. But the strength of numbers should not replace the weakness of the chain of receipt," he said.