Jiwasraya Case, Prosecutors Failed To Prove Heru Hidayat's Funds Flow To Bentjok, Expert: Case Could Have Been Stopped

Benny Tjokro. (Photo: Doc. Antara)

JAKARTA - An interesting fact was revealed in the trial of one of the defendants in the Jiwasraya Insurance investment corruption case, Piter Rasiman at the Central Jakarta Corruption Court (Tipikor), Wednesday, June 16, 2021. Starting from the prosecutor who could not present evidence of the flow of funds related to corruption to the fact that the repurchase agreement (Repo) had also been paid long before the emergence of the rasuah case.

For information, the witnesses presented by the public prosecutor included Hendrisman Rahim, Hary Prasetyo, Syahmirwan, Joko Hartono Tirto, Heru Hidayat and Benny Tjokrosaputro. As stated by witness Hendrisman Rahim, he said, the stock investment policy was carried out by the corporation before he served as the President Director of Jiwasraya from 2008 to 2018. Including investments outside of LQ45 shares.

"Yes, that's fine, sir, because the investment division has been analyzed in stages at the investment committee," said Hendrisman in response to questions from the Public Prosecutor, quoted on Friday, June 18.

Hendrisman also reasoned that the purchase of shares outside of LQ45 was done because Jiwasraya's condition at that time was no longer soft.

"The company lacked Rp6.7 trillion in funds, and there should be a government obligation to increase these funds. But at that time the government did not have the money, and asked us to keep running this company so that it can survive without violating the law," he said.

"So we do it so that the company can survive, of course what has been approved by the shareholders," he added.

He also explained before the public prosecutor that the principle of investing in stocks is high risk, high return. Hendrisman also emphasized that if the stock investment policy is not adopted, the company will go bankrupt more quickly.

"After the investment, from the financial statements that I receive every year, there are ups and downs but at the end of the year everything is profitable, sir. It's profitable, sir, if you don't have money, where do you pay your claims, sir. The money is also in Jiwasraya's account," he said.

Meanwhile, the next fact is that there is no evidence of transfer or flow of funds between Heru Hidayat and Benny Tjokro. It is known that the prosecutor only submitted evidence of an email request for funds but could not provide proof of transfer.

This was revealed when the panel of judges asked Heru Hidayat for evidence of the case, who was also present as a witness at the trial.

"The email contained a request for a money transfer. Mr. Piter asked because he needed money, he wanted to borrow me. But the practice never happened. In essence, the email was just a request but it never happened. proof of the transfer," said Heru.

The judge also questioned the evidence of sending the money to the prosecutor.

"With the permission of the assembly, we only found that data (email)," said the public prosecutor.

Responding to these facts, Trisakti University criminal law expert Abdul Fickar said that this case could have been stopped.

"Because the evidence that can be submitted as a basis for filing a case is at least two pieces of evidence to prove the occurrence of a criminal act of corruption," said Fickar in his statement to reporters in Jakarta, Friday, June 18.

The evidence referred to by Fickar is witness testimony, letter evidence, expert testimony and/or suspect testimony.

"This means that if there is only one witness report without the support of other evidence, the investigation cannot continue," he said.

The question of email can also be used as evidence, he continued, as long as there is confirmation of payment or transfer of more than one person.

"It could be evidence of origin, there is an email reply to be perfect evidence," he said.

Meanwhile, Senior Analyst of the CSA Research Institute, Reza Priyambada, said that those who do not understand the investment world must think that investment in securities is debt and if the results are not satisfactory, there will be many violations.

"In fact, if you look at it like that, whatever the name of the transaction, there must be a potential violation. But don't assume that the transaction or investment is a violation. So we can't necessarily say that investing in securities or stocks is against the law. violates the law, as long as the investment is in accordance with the corridor," said Reza.

He reasoned, in the management of the funds there is such a thing as standard operating procedures. This is something the prosecutor's office has to look at. If the handling of this case is generalized, then there are investors who are afraid to invest.

Likewise with the process of confiscation of assets that are not related to the case, Reza is worried that it will affect a bad presentation for investors in the future.

"Like, for example, suppose that company A is indicated to be involved in misappropriating Jiwasraya funds. Now people are afraid to open an account or buy mutual fund products at Investment Manager A. Even though the company has no problems, market participants will be worried and afraid to invest, " concluded Reza.