Pinangki Refuses To Be Examined By Bareskrim Polri, Why?

Attorney General's Office (Photo: Angga Nugraha / VOI)

JAKARTA - Attorney Pinangki Sirna Malasari refused to be questioned by Bareskrim Polri regarding the development of Djoko Tjandra's fund flow in the alleged bribery case for eliminating red notice.

Why did Pinangki refuse to be questioned by Bareskrim? It is not certain why Pinangki refused to do this. However, based on a report from Bareskrim, Pinangki did not want to be questioned.

"I got the report from the sub-directorate that it could not take place (investigation) because Pinangki refused. But we hope that this is clear and Pinangki must also be able to provide information," said the Director of Investigation at the Junior Attorney General for Special Crimes (Dirdik Jampidsus) at the Attorney General's Office, Febrie Ardiansyah to journalists, Thursday, August 27.

Febrie admitted that Bareskrim had not yet been informed of why Pinangki refused to be questioned. So that his party does not know the reason for the rejection.

Bareskrim will inquire about Pinangki at the Jampidsus Roundabout Building, Attorney General's Office. However, until now there has been no bi

"I don't know for sure. Is it possible to walk or not this afternoon," said Febrie.

Meanwhile, Bareskrim Polri is currently handling a case of alleged bribery related to the removal of red notice Djoko Tjandra. In this case, the police have named four people as suspects.

They are Inspector General Napoleon Bonaparte and Brigadier General Prasetyo Utomo. Both are suspected as recipients of bribes for red notice removal.

Both of them are charged with Article 5 Paragraph 2, Article 11 and Article 12 letters a and b of Law Number 20 of 2020 on Corruption (Tipikor) in conjunction with Article 55 of the Criminal Code.

While the other two people are bribes. They are Djoko Tjandra and Tommy Sumardi. Both of them were charged under Article 5 Paragraph 1, Article 13 of Law 20/2020 concerning Corruption Crime (Tipikor) in conjunction with Article 55 of the Criminal Code.

In the bribery case, investigators confiscated US $ 20 thousand, cellphones, including CCTV as evidence.