BPKP Audit Questioned, Tamron's Attorney Reveals New Facts In The Tin Corruption Case

The follow-up trial of the alleged corruption case in tin trading. (IST)

JAKARTA - The alleged corruption case in tin trading has returned to the spotlight. Tamron's attorney, Andy Inovi Nababan, revealed new findings that are considered to be able to change the direction of the investigation. In a follow-up hearing at the Central Jakarta Corruption Court, Andy highlighted the discrepancies in the procedures in the investigation and prosecution that took place.

"We believe that many of the procedures in this investigation and prosecution do not comply with the rules. Our client, Tamron, should have been found not guilty," Andy said on Monday, November 11.

According to Andy, the findings of the Tamron legal team are related to the audit mechanism and determination of state losses in this case. Based on the Supreme Court Circular (SEMA) No. 4 of 2016, the authority to determine state losses lies only with the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK), not other parties. Meanwhile, BPKP only has a role in internal audits.

This tin trading system case stems from allegations of manipulation of lead distribution which is suspected to be detrimental to the state. Several parties were involved in price settings and tin supply. However, the ongoing legal process drew criticism, because it was considered to ignore the legal procedures that should have been carried out.

Andy also highlighted the role of BPKP in this case that needs to be reviewed. "BPKP cannot directly conduct an audit, because in this case, PT is a subsidiary of BUMN that has special rules," said Andy, referring to Government Regulation No. 47 of 2017.

With these new findings, Tamron's legal team hopes that this case can be handled transparently and fairly. "We hope that law enforcement officials evaluate every procedure in investigating this case," he said.

Allegations of corruption in tin trading attracted widespread attention, because apart from involving the economic sector, this case also touched on legal aspects related to abuse of authority and non-compliance with legal procedures.

In the previous trial, expert witnesses from the Faculty of Law, Atma Jaya University, Yogyakarta, W. Riawan Tjandra, confirmed that only the BPK has the authority to determine state losses, in accordance with SEMA No. 4 of 2016. The same thing was revealed by Prof. Dr. Nindyo Pramono, SH, MS, a legal expert from Gadjah Mada University, who stated that the BPK is the only party authorized to determine state losses.

This case continues to attract public attention. With the various findings revealed by the legal team, the public is looking forward to further developments.