Ask Febri Diansyah To Encourage Ferdy Sambo-Putri To Talk Right In The Murder Case Of Brigadier J, Kamaruddin: So The Money Is Halal Not Haram

Kamaruddin Simanjuntak and Family from Brigadier J (Photo: Rizky AP/VOI)

JAKARTA - The attorney for the family of Brigadier J, Kamaruddin Simanjuntak, asked Febri Diansyah and Rasamala Aritonang to guide their clients, Ferdy Sambo and Putri Chandrawathi, to tell the truth during the trial later. Because, if his attorney teaches his client to say it's not true, the sin will actually be borne by itself. "Don't because of honorariums, for example, or whatever the name is, his client's sins. But what's right is to save his client, the money becomes halal, not haram," explained Kamaruddin in the Slipi area, West Jakarta, Thursday, September 29. Regarding Febri Cs' promise to be objective in handling this client case, Kamaruddin responded casually. The matter of objective or not will be proven by the time itself. It is known that Febri Diansyah is the attorney for Ferdy Sambo. Meanwhile, Rasamala Aritonanng is the wife of Ferdy, Putri Chandrawathi. The AGO stated that the case files of the suspects in the murder case against Nopriansyah Yosua Hutabarat alias Brigadier J and the obstruction of justice were complete. Thus, the case will soon enter the trial stage. In the case of Brigadier J's premeditated murder, there were five suspects. They are Ferdy Sambo, Putri Chandrawahti, Bripka Ricky Rizal, Bharada Richard target, and Strong Ma'ruf. They are suspected of under Article 340 subsidiary 338 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph (1) and Article 56 of the Criminal Code. Then, there were seven cases of obstruction of justice. In that case there are seven suspects. They are Ferdy Sambo, Brigadier General Hendra Kurniawan, Kombes Agus Nur Patria, Kompol Chuck Putranto, Kompol Baiquni Wibowo, AKBP Arif Rachman Arifin, and AKP Irfan Widyanto. They are suspected of violating Article 49 in conjunction with Article 33 and/or Article 48 paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 32 paragraph (1) Number 19 of 2016 of the ITE Law. In addition, they were also charged with Article 55 paragraph (1) and/or Article 221 paragraph (1) 2 and/or Article 233 of the Criminal Code.