Attorney: We Take Hasto Home To Banteng Kandang

Hasto Kristiyanto's attorney, Patra M. Zen/PHOTO: Rizky Adytia-VOI

It is believed that the Secretary General of the PDI-P Hasto Kristiyanto was not involved in the alleged bribery case for the management of the replacement between the DPR (PAW) for the 2019-2024 period and the obstruction to the investigation of Harun Masiku, the panel of judges who tried the case would impose a verdict or acquittal.

This belief was conveyed by Hasto Kristiyanto's attorney, Patra M. Zen. His client will return to serve as secretary general of the party.

"God willing, if God allows, Friday, July 25, 2025, we will take the Secretary General home. We will take Pak Hasto home to the Banteng Kandang. Thank you," Patra said after the trial at the Jakarta Corruption Court, Friday, July 18.

This belief was also based on the facts of the trial, Patra stated that all witnesses presented by the Public Prosecutor (JPU), none of them strengthened the indictment.

"Who is the witness filed by the public prosecutor himself who can prove the indictment? Both the obstruction charges and the bribery charges? The 15 witnesses filed by the public prosecutor, none of them is burdensome, let alone those who prove Pak Hasto's involvement," said Patra.

Even with evidence of letters and expert statements. None of them was burdensome or proved Hasto's involvement as charged by the prosecutor.

"Expert information also cannot bring up facts. In fact, experts submitted by the public prosecutor even support the arguments of the legal advisory team. What for example? A linguist conveys, if there is a sentence If there are words, then the meaning must be asked to the person concerned," he explained.

"Evidence of clues Both recordings, both conversations, are evidence of illegal absorption results. It is invalid. Therefore it cannot be used. It should not be contained in the consideration of the panel of judges," continued Patra.

During the trial, Hasto, who had testified, had also stated that he had no involvement in the alleged bribery or obstruction of the investigation.

Therefore, the panel of judges is expected to see a series of facts about the trial and dare to decide on Hasto Kristiyanto's release.

"The defendant stated that he was not involved in this case, the defendant had never committed a criminal act. So the father's mother once again We pray this Friday, a blessed day, hopefully these three panel of judges will dare to make decisions based on the facts of the trial," said Patra.

It is known that the trial for reading the verdict of the alleged bribery case for handling changes between the DPR's 2019-2024 period and the obstruction of Harun Masiku's investigation will be held on Friday, July 25.

In this case, Hasto was charged with imprisonment for 7 years. In addition, the prosecutor also demanded a fine of Rp600 million.

The fine is demanded that if it is not paid, it will be replaced with a prison sentence of 6 months.

Hasto Kristiyanto 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.