Nikita Mirzani Affirms That The House Was Purchased In His Own Name, Not An Effort To Disseminate Assets

Nikita Mirzani (Virgi/VOI)

JAKARTA The trial of the alleged Money Laundering (TPPU) case that dragged the name of artist Nikita Mirzani back was hot.

During the trial, Nikita firmly denied allegations that she was trying to disguise assets or hide the origins of her wealth.

Nikita explained that from the start, the house she bought used a personal name, not on behalf of other people or the company. This, according to him, proves that there is no intention of hiding the property as alleged.

During the trial, Nikita Mirzani directly questioned the PPATK expert witness regarding the possibility that the purchase of a house in his personal name could be categorized as an effort to disguise property.

"If the action is taken to buy an asset in its own name or in the name of its own company, can it be included in the alleged element of the purpose of hiding or disguising the origin of the wealth? Please," Nikita asked the expert witness.

The expert witness replied that the assessment must first be based on the origin of the money used in the transaction.

"It must be seen before moving or making transactions, whether it comes from the proceeds of a crime or not? It can only be said that it is money laundering offenses," explained the expert witness.

Nikita then explained that in his case, the purchase of the house was carried out in a transparent and clear manner on his own behalf.

At first, Reza wanted to give everything in cash. But Mail didn't want to, because Mail knew I had a house installment, I was buying the house and the house as long as it wasn't disguised in my own name. Since the beginning, the house was from PT Bumi Wisesa on behalf of Nikita Mirzani, not disguised," said Nikita.

This statement is one of Nikita's main arguments that there is no practice of disguise or hiding in transactions to purchase assets.

Furthermore, Nikita highlighted the testimony of the PPATK expert witness, who according to her, only came from the brief chronology of investigators without reading the BAP (Remittance of the Examination Event) as a whole.

"It means that from the beginning, if you want to stay in touch, how do you want to meet Nikita, according to the expert, can you enter Article 3 of the TPPU?" asked Nikita again to the expert witness.

However, the expert witness admitted that he did not know in detail because he only received chronology from investigators.

"There is a chronology, but for exactly this we don't," replied the expert witness.

This made Nikita further question the credibility of the witness testimony. He considered that if the expert witness did not read the details of the BAP or listen to related recordings, the analysis provided could be misleading.