Expert Calls Auction Of Asabri's Confiscated Asset Evidence Inadequate

Illustration. (Photo: Doc. Asabri)

JAKARTA - The Attorney General's Office (AGO) is aggressively conducting auctions of confiscated assets related to the Asabri case. However, it appears that the property or assets are not related to crime.

The AGO is known to have conducted an auction process involving the AGO's Asset Recovery Center (PPA). PPA has coordinated with the Public Appraisal Service Office (KJPP) to assess its assets, later the KPKNL (State Assets and Auction Service Office) who held the auction.

In response to the plan, Money Laundering Legal Expert, Yenti Garnasih, assessed that the legal basis for the AGO's plan to auction off a number of evidence related to the alleged corruption case of financial management and investment funds at PT Asabri (Persero) was inadequate.

The reason is that the Adhyaksa Corps only refers to Article 45 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), which is burdened with the cost of maintaining confiscated assets.

"It's too minimal to just stick to the Criminal Procedure Code, while this corruption is outside the Criminal Procedure Code. It should have its own tools, the Criminal Procedure Code is for ordinary stealing, ordinary crimes," Yenti said in Jakarta as quoted on Monday, June 14.

Meanwhile, the alleged existence of assets that are still in debt and not related to corruption cases, said Yenti, the prosecutor should not question it. This means that the auction execution cannot be carried out (non-executable).

Non-executable decisions, among others, are regulated in article 39 of the Criminal Procedure Code which stipulates that the owner of evidence that is not proven to have entered into an "evil agreement" with the perpetrator of a crime, the evidence should be returned to the rightful owner/owner.

If the prosecutor refers to Article 45 of the Criminal Code, the auction must have the owner's approval and must be attended by the suspect in the auction. However, the Prosecutor's Office did not present any suspects.

Trisakti University criminal law expert, Abdul Fickar was similar and said that if it was not in accordance with the law, the auction would not be valid.

"Moreover, there has been no court decision stating that the goods are the result of a crime or evidence that can be submitted to the state. So it is not legal," said Fickar.

According to him, if in the future there is a dispute over the results of the auction, there could be a change in the status of the evidence that is not submitted to the state. Confiscation of existing objects that are used as evidence before the time (tempus) the actions carried out by the defendant or convict both in the corruption case and in the money laundering crime case are against the law, therefore they must be returned to the rightful person or from where the goods in question were confiscated.

"This means that the public prosecutor (JPU) must return it to the defendant or convict," he said.

The public prosecutor as the executor of a criminal case must also be held responsible because he has sold must be responsible.

"If later the court decides to 'return' the assets to those who are entitled, namely the defendant, it means that the prosecutor must buy back the evidence that has already been sold," he said.

The buyer of the auction goods must also voluntarily surrender the goods belonging to the defendant.

"The prosecutor must buy back the evidence that has been sold. Unless the defendant has no problem, he only accepts the money from the sale of the auction items," he said.