IAW Requests Alleged Trade Case of ASABRI-Jiwasraya to be Investigated in Depth

DOK PHOTO BETWEEN

JAKARTA - Indonesian Audit Watch (IAW) asked law enforcement officials to thoroughly investigate alleged corruption and money laundering (TPPU) in handling the ASABRI-Jiwasraya case. This practice is said to be more dangerous than procurement corruption because it concerns the integrity of the judicial system.

"If it is true that there is a gift, pressure, gratification, or flow of money to influence the legal process, then what is at stake is not only state money. This concerns who is being investigated, who is being protected, which assets are seized, which assets are released, to how the direction of the case is determined," said Iskandar Sitorus as the Founding Secretary of IAW through his written statement, Wednesday, July 15.

Iskandar assessed that the current investigation is different from the main case of ASABRI and Jiwasraya corruption, which has gone through the stages of investigation, prosecution, trial, and execution of assets. However, he reminded the public not to be hasty in making assumptions after there were searches and seizures of assets.

The law enforcement apparatus, still said Iskandar, also needs to clearly separate the main case of ASABRI-Jiwasraya corruption with the alleged game in the legal handling process. Explanation must be given because the parties involved are entitled to the protection of the presumption of innocence.

"If it is not explained, the public will assume that the entire legal process of ASABRI and Jiwasraya is problematic, although it is not necessarily so. What must be proven is the concrete event and the relationship between the grant, authority, and the legal decision that arises afterwards," he said.

In addition, Iskandar assessed that the proof of the case was not enough to rely on the findings of cash, gold, safes and foreign exchange from the search.

Law enforcement agencies must build a complete chain of evidence starting from the origin of funds, transaction channels, the identity of the giver and the recipient to the alleged affected legal decision.

"The state has not sufficiently proven that the money was found. The state must prove that the money came from whom, was given for what, was accepted by whom, influenced what decisions, and then was transferred through which channels," he said.

Iskandar reminded that the transfer of handling cases to the Attorney General's Office needed to be carried out transparently considering that one of the suspects was said to have held a high position in the institution. According to him, potential conflicts of interest must be anticipated through the formation of an independent team, internal and external supervision, and openness to the development of cases.

"Corruption in procurement steals state money. But corruption in handling cases can steal justice itself. The biggest test of a legal state is not only to punish corruptors, but to ensure that institutions that pursue state money do not turn into a market for cases they are handling," concluded Iskandar.