Former Bank Manager Files Corruption Article 'Enriching and Benefiting Others' to the Supreme Court

Illustration - The atmosphere of the trial of the ruling on Law Number 30 of 2002 concerning the KPK at the Constitutional Court, Jakarta. ANTARA FOTO/Asprilla Dwi Adha/rwa/am.

JAKARTA - The phrases "enriching" and "benefiting" oneself, others or a corporation in Articles 603 and 604 of the Criminal Code (KUHP) have just been tested by the Constitutional Court (MK) by a former bank employee named Ershad Bangkit Yuslivar.

Ershad, who in around 2017 served as commercial manager at a regional bank, was once charged with allegedly enriching himself, others or a corporation in a corruption case related to the disbursement of credit.

The applicant's lawyer, Muhammad Ali Fernandez, in the preliminary examination hearing of Case Number 283/PUU-XXIII/2025, said his client suffered constitutional harm as a result of the phrases.

"The applicant is forced, in quotes, to deny that the applicant has enriched or benefited others. In fact, enriching or benefiting others is the applicant's work obligation," said Ali as quoted by ANTARA, Wednesday, January 14.

In addition to the new Articles 603 and 604 of the Criminal Code, the applicant also tested the constitutionality of Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 of Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Corruption Crimes which regulates similar provisions.

Ali said that as a bank employee, one of his client's duties is to process credit applications. According to him, his client has worked in good faith to ensure that before the credit is disbursed.

However, later, Ershad was found guilty of approving a request for a construction working capital loan without the necessary requirements, which caused a loss to the state treasury of IDR 743,800,000.

"The applicant is considered to have provided customers with a profit of IDR 743,800,000 in the form of credit disbursement," said Ali.

"In simple terms, the work of his client receiving and processing credit applications is considered to fulfill the elements of enriching others or a corporation. "In fact, it is the applicant's work obligation and carrying out the orders of the superior," he explained.

According to Ali, with such a construction of the case, the act of enriching or benefiting others or a corporation has existed and been fulfilled since the beginning of the applicant as a banking employee processing the disbursement of credit.

"In other words, the applicant's work that enriches or benefits others from the beginning is included in the qualification of the act prohibited by the Law," he said.

According to the applicant, this condition causes concern and uncertainty of a fair law, especially for banking employees, because the disbursement of credit can potentially be convicted on the basis of phrases in the article in question.

Furthermore, Ali said that in the context of criminal law, a person can only be convicted if there is an element of evil intent. Therefore, the applicant asked the Court to re-interpret the articles tested with a clarification regarding good faith.

In his petition, the applicant asked the Court to interpret the articles being tested by adding the phrase "not convicted of enriching others or a corporation in good faith in carrying out the obligations of a legitimate work or a post order."

Article 603 of the Criminal Code states that "anyone who unlawfully enriches himself, others, or corporations to the detriment of the state's finances or the state's economy is sentenced to life imprisonment or a minimum of 2 (two) years and a maximum of 20 (twenty) years imprisonment and a minimum fine of category II and a maximum of category VI.

Meanwhile, Article 604 of the Criminal Code reads: Anyone who, for the purpose of benefiting themselves, others, or the Corporation, abuses the authority, opportunity, or means available to him due to his position or position that is detrimental to the state's finances or the state's economy, is sentenced to life imprisonment or a minimum of 2 (two) years and a maximum of 20 (twenty) years and a minimum fine of category II and a maximum of category VI.