Three Defendants Of The 4G BTS Case Corporation Will Undergo Today's Decision Session

Court illustration (ANTARA)

JAKARTA - Three corporate defendants in the alleged corruption case of Base Transceiver Station (BTS) 4G and supporting infrastructure 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, will undergo a verdict hearing, today.

They include, Commissioner of PT Solitech Media Sinergy, Irwan Hermawan; former President Director of PT Mora Telematika Indonesia, Galumbang Menak Simanjuntak; and Account Director of Integrated Account Department of PT Huawei Tech Investment, Mukti Ali.

"The plan is to read the verdict," said Irwan Hermawan's lawyer, Maqdir Ismail, to reporters, Thursday, November 9.

Irwan Hermawan was originally sentenced to six years in prison and a fine of Rp250 million, subsidiary to 3 months in prison. In addition, the defendant was required to pay compensation of Rp7 billion, a subsidiary of 3 years in prison.

The claim was because the prosecutor considered that Irwan Hermawan's actions violated Article 2 paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 18 of the Anti-Corruption Law in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code and Article 3 of Law Number 8 of 2010 concerning Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph 1 1 of the Criminal Code.

Meanwhile, the defendant Galumbang Menak was charged with 15 years in prison. Not only criminal, but the prosecutor also demanded that the defendant Galumbang pay a fine of Rp. 1 billion.

If you do not have the ability to fine, you can be replaced with one year in prison.

The claim is because Galumbang is considered to have violated Article 2 paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 18 of the Anti-Corruption Law in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph 1 1 of the Criminal Code and Article 3 of Law Number 8 of 2010 concerning Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code.

Meanwhile, Mukti Ali was sentenced to 6 years in prison and a fine of Rp. 500 million, subsidiary to six months in prison. This is because he is considered to have violated Article 2 paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 18 of the Anti-Corruption Law in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code.