JAKARTA - Expert in Criminal Law at Mataram University, Ufran Trisa, explained the three main aspects that must be proven by investigators if the alleged money laundering (TPPU) in the case involving former Deputy Attorney General for Special Crimes (Jampidsus), Febrie Adriansyah, is further developed. According to him, proving TPPU is not enough to find assets of great value, but must be able to link it to the original crime and the party who controls the assets.
The statement was made in a public discussion entitled "Uncovering TPPU and Alleged Intellectual Actors Behind the Former Jampidsus Case: Testing the Independence and Integrity of Law Enforcement" which was held by the Millennial Activist Network (JAM) in Central Jakarta, Friday, July 24, via Zoom.
According to Ufran, the first aspect that must be proven by investigators is the connection between the assets found and the original crime (predicate crime), such as corruption, bribery, or gratification.
"Investigators must build a legal construction that the money, gold, or assets found really come from the original crime," he said.
The second aspect is the proof of who is actually in control or the beneficial owner of the asset. This is important to ensure who enjoys the economic benefits of the found property, even though the ownership is recorded in the name of another party.
Meanwhile, the third aspect is to prove that there is an attempt to conceal or disguise the origin of the wealth.
"If these three relationships can be proven, then the construction of the crime of money laundering becomes stronger. Without proof, the assets found will only be wealth that raises suspicions," said Ufran.
In addition to explaining the aspect of proving TPPU, Ufran also assessed that the search action carried out by the police investigators in the case could be justified as long as it was carried out in accordance with the authority and provisions of the criminal procedure law.
According to him, the secrecy of the search is actually needed in cases involving high officials or having a wide network to prevent the loss of evidence or disruption of the investigation process.
He alluded to the views that have developed in the public space regarding the designation of Febrie Adriansyah as a suspect who is said to have a procedural defect because it was not preceded by an examination as a potential suspect.
Ufran explained that the Constitutional Court's Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014 indeed emphasized the importance of providing space for prospective suspects to provide information. However, according to him, this provision is part of the legal consideration (ratio decidendi), not the ruling that explicitly requires an examination before the determination of suspects in each case.
"Therefore, it is not appropriate in terms of doctrine to conclude that investigators must first examine a person before designating them as a suspect in any case. The assessment must be adjusted to the characteristics of the case being handled," he said.
He added that the purpose of examining the prospective suspects was to provide an opportunity to explain the evidence that investigators had collected, not to open the opportunity to eliminate evidence.
Therefore, according to Ufran, the sudden search action is part of a legitimate investigation strategy if it is carried out based on legal authority.
"Therefore, the search action carried out suddenly can be justified as long as it is carried out based on valid authority and procedures. The confidentiality of the search does not mean that the right of the suspect to be examined can be ignored, but is part of the investigation strategy," he said.
Ufran also revealed three modus operandi that are often found in TPPU cases, namely storing cash outside the banking system, converting the results of crimes into assets such as gold or other forms of wealth that are easy to move, and using the name of another party or nominee to disguise ownership of assets.
The discussion held by the Millennial Activist Network (JAM) also featured Public Policy Analyst and Political Economy Observer Faisal Lohi, Executive Director of Indonesia Political Review (IPR) Iwan Setiawan, Chairman of the Advocacy of the Indonesian Legal Aid Center (PBHI) Akbar Roohul Amin, and Public Policy and Governance Researcher Gian Kasogi. The activity was attended by student organizations, activist networks, researchers, practitioners, students, and the general public.
The English, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, and French versions are automatically generated by the AI. So there may still be inaccuracies in translating, please always see Indonesian as our main language. (system supported by DigitalSiber.id)
