Hasto's Lawyer Calls Prosecutor's Replic Contrary To Trial Facts

PDIP Secretary General Hasto Kristiyanto after the trial at the Jakarta Corruption Court, Friday, April 25. (Rizky A-VOI)

JAKARTA - The attorney for the Secretary General of the PDIP, Hasto Kristiyanto, Maqdir Ismail, assessed that the replica of the Public Prosecutor (JPU) was not in line with the series of facts revealed in the trial. One of them is regarding the Call Data Record (CDR)

CDR is data regarding call details, time, and telecommunications transactions. The data is used to find out the location of the device user based on the tower signal.

According to Maqdir, CDR data was used by prosecutors as basic evidence for the KPK to ensnare Hasto Kristiyanto in the case of obstruction to the investigation.

"This is a fact that the Call Data Record cannot be relied on," said Maqdir after the match at the Jakarta Corruption Court, Monday, July 14.

In addition, the data also does not escape mistakes. For example, the transfer of Harun Masiku's location from Kebon Jeruk, West Jakarta to Tanah Abang, Central Jakarta within 1 second.

"If you remember, when we asked expert Bob Hardian (Information and Technology System expert from the University of Indonesia) about Harun Masiku's trip from West Jakarta to Tanah Abang only needed one second, according to him, it was impossible," he said.

Maqdir also highlighted CDR data showing a trip from Menteng, Central Jakarta to the PTIK Police Science College in South Jakarta which only took 15 minutes. In fact, generally the travel time is longer.

"It was around 17 o'clock or almost 18 p.m., starting traveling not only to Mampang but also to get into Gatot Subroto and also to go to the Ministerial Complex according to their records it only took 15 minutes," said Maqdir.

"This is something that is impossible. I remember very well saying that it was also impossible," he continued

Therefore, Maqdir emphasized that the KPK prosecutor's argument regarding CDR data had been refuted by the facts of the trial, as well as from expert statements.

"So what we want to say is what was conveyed, especially the rejection by the public prosecutor on the pretext of using technology, especially Call Data Record, has been refuted by the facts at trial and even explained by their experts," said Maqdir.

In fact, Maqdir also stated that there was not a single piece of evidence or witness testimony that said Harun Masiku and Hasto were at PTIK. Thus, the prosecutor's indictment regarding the involvement of his client is refuted

"Meanwhile, in fact, there is not a single piece of evidence, not a single witness said that the HM and Mr. HK were at PTIK. What they can show is from the Call Data Record that they were there," said Maqdir.

As a reminder, Hasto was charged by the Public Prosecutor (JPU) with 7 years in prison. In addition, the prosecutor also charged Hasto Kristiyanto with a fine of Rp. 600 million. If it is not paid, it will be replaced with a prison sentence of 6 months.

In this case, Hasto was charged together with advocate Donny Tri Istiqomah, former PDIP cadre Saeful Bahri, and Harun Masiku were charged with giving bribes of Rp 600 million to Wahyu Setiawan (KPU commissioner) in the 2019-2020 period.

This bribe is so that Wahyu seeks the KPU to approve the application of PAW for the South Sumatra Election Candidate (Sumsel) I on behalf of DPR members for the 2019-2024 period Riezky Aprilia to Harun Masiku.

Hasto was also charged with obstructing the investigation by ordering Harun, through the Aspiration House guard, Nur Hasan, to submerge Harun's cell phone into the water after the KPK OTT incident against Wahyu Setiawan.

Not only Harun Masiku's cellphone, Hasto is also said to have ordered his aide, Kusnadi, to drown his cell phone in anticipation of forced attempts by KPK investigators.

Hasto was charged with Article 21 and Article 5 paragraph (1) letter a or Article 13 of Law (UU) Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption as amended and supplemented by Law Number 20 of 2001 in conjunction with Article 65 paragraph (1) and Article 55 paragraph (1) 1 in conjunction with Article 64 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code.