Waiting For The Decision Of The Corruption Case Of Tin Administration Of IDR 300 Trillion

The atmosphere of the Timah Commercial Administration corruption trial with a loss of Rp. 300 trillion. (IST)

JAKARTA CV Legal Advisor. Venus Inti Perkasa (Thamron alias Aon Cs), Andy Inovi Nababan, SH, accused the Attorney General's Special Crime Investigators (AGO) of violating the law in the alleged corruption case of the Tin Commercial Administration with a loss of Rp. 300 trillion.

This statement was conveyed by Andy in his exception (the objection note) at the trial of the corruption case of the Tin Administration at the Central Jakarta District Court (PN), Thursday (5/9/2024). Andy emphasized that the Corruption Court does not have the authority to try the case, which should be included in the category of environmental disputes.

According to Andy Nababan, the public prosecutor has wrongly implemented the Corruption Act in this case. He explained that PT Timah Tbk, as a subsidiary of BUMN, was not involved in state finances, in accordance with Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 47 of 2017. In this regulation, PT Timah Tbk is still a subsidiary of PT Inalum.

Constitutional Court Decision Number: 01/PHPU-PRES/XVII/2019 strengthens Andy's view by stating that the capital of SOE subsidiaries comes from the separation of the assets of the parent company of SOEs, not from the state. Therefore, the subsidiary of SOEs has no direct relationship with state finances.

Andy also refers to the Circular Letter of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number: 10 of 2020 and Government Regulation Number 72 of 2016, which confirms that state capital participation does not involve BUMN subsidiaries.

Based on these facts, Andy emphasized that this case should be resolved through environmental law, because the losses incurred were not state financial losses, but environmental losses. According to him, the calculation of environmental losses carried out by the AGO Investigators in this case contradicts the laws and regulations.

Andy considered that the indictment of the Public Prosecutor (JPU) based on the Minutes of Investigation (BAP) was legally flawed. According to him, the indictment was null and void because the AGO investigators had made the wrong investigation and calculated environmental damage.

Andy referred to Law Number 32 of 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management as well as other related laws, which should be the basis for resolving this case. He also criticized investigators who calculated environmental damage, even though the authority was with the National Police and Civil Servant Investigators (PPNS).

Furthermore, Andy said that the AGO investigators had violated Article 14 of Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Corruption Crimes which had been amended by Law Number 20 of 2001. He also considered that several elements of the indictment related to state losses in this case were contrary to the Minerba Law, the PPLH Law, and the P3H Law.

Andy emphasized that there are strong allegations that the AGO investigators, prosecutors, BPKP, and other related parties have abused their authority in this case. He also highlighted a conflict of interest, where the same person acts as an investigator and prosecutor, which is against the Criminal Procedure Code and the principle of functional differentiation in the criminal justice system in Indonesia.

The Public Prosecutor's Team (JPU) is scheduled to provide responses to the exception of the CV legal adviser. Venus Inti Perkasa on Tuesday (9/9/2024). Meanwhile, the judge's decision will be announced on Thursday (12/9/2024).