Lili Pintauli Who Doesn't Regret Even Though She Is Declared To Have Violated The Code Of Ethics

Deputy Chairperson of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Lili Pintauli Siregar at the KPK Council / DOK Public Relations Commission session

JAKARTA - Deputy Chairperson of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Lili Pintauli Siregar said the KPK Supervisory Board did not show any regret for violating ethics by abusing his authority and contacting the litigants, namely the inactive Tanjungbalai Mayor M Syahrial.

This then became a burdensome thing for Lili Pintauli until she was finally given a severe sanction in the form of cutting her basic salary by 40 percent for a year.

Through the ethics session, the KPK Supervisory Board decided that Lili Pintauli had violated ethics. He is said to have abused his authority for personal gain and was in direct contact with M Syahrial, who was involved in a corruption case involving the alleged sale and purchase of positions.

"Try and declare the examinee Lili Pintauli Siregar guilty of violating the code of ethics and behavioral guidelines in the form of abuse of influence as a KPK leader for personal interests and dealing with the party whose case is being handled," said Chair of the Ethics Council Tumpak Hatorangan in an online trial, Monday. , August 30.

Furthermore, the Corruption Eradication Committee (KPK) sentenced Lili to severe sanctions in the form of a 40 percent reduction in her basic salary for a year. There are two aggravating reasons for Tumpak Hatorangan Panggabean et al to impose this sanction.

First, Lili did not show any remorse for her actions. Second, he is considered not to provide an example as well as a role model for the KPK leadership.

Furthermore, this trial revealed how the introduction between Lili and M Syahrial led to ethical violations. A member of the Ethics Council, Harjono, said that the introduction of the two took place in February-March 2020.

At that time, Lili met Syahrial on a flight from Medan to Jakarta and they took a selfie together.

From that meeting, it was known that Lili had asked about the payment of service fees for her sister-in-law, Ruri Prihatini Lubis who works at PDAM Tirta Kualo Tanjungbalai. After the conversation, Syahrial then took the initiative to ask for the mobile number of the former LPSK Commissioner.

From exchanging cell phone numbers, Syahrial then contacted Lili to inform her of the payment of the service fee amounting to Rp53,334,640 which was paid in three installments.

Next, communication occurred again in July 2020. At that time, Lili contacted M Syahrial because his name was in the corruption file for buying and selling positions at the Tanjungbalai City Government.

"The examinee contacted M Syahrial at the time of the examination saw the file of sale and purchase of positions in the name of witness M Syahrial on his desk by saying 'this is your name on my desk, shame on you, you still take Rp. 200 million'. please help'," said Harjono.

"Then the examinee replied 'pray you a lot'," he added.

It's just that the Executive Secretary and other KPK leaders apparently never received or read files or records related to the case of buying and selling positions that ensnared M Syahrial.

Then, in October 2020, Syahrial again contacted Lili and asked her to help handle the alleged corruption case. This communication was carried out after investigators conducted a search in North Labuhanbatu, North Sumatra.

It was during this communication that Lili asked Syahrial to contact Arif Aceh, a lawyer from Medan to help him.

"The examiner suggested that Syahrial contact a lawyer in Medan by saying, 'yes, this is Arif Aceh's number, communicate with him'," said Harjono.

After hearing the decision of the KPK Supervisory Board, Lili did not express regret or apology for her actions. He only thanked him after the trial closed.

"Thank you, sir," said Lili as quoted from the trial which was held online.

"So mother, do you have something to say?" asked Tumpak ending the trial.

"Thank you, sir," said the former commissioner of the Witness and Victim Protection Agency (LPSK).

He also made a similar statement outside the courtroom. However, Lili added that she still accepted the verdict that had been handed down on her.

"I accept the response of Dewas. I accept, there is no other effort," he said.

The complainant is dissatisfied

Former Director of Inter-Commission and Institutional Network Development (PJKAKI) Sujanarko, who is the reporting party, admitted that he was not satisfied and disappointed with the decision of the KPK Supervisory Board which only imposed a sanction of 40 percent of basic salary cuts for a year against Lili.

He considered that the decision was not enough because a 40 percent deduction from Lili's basic salary meant only Rp. 1.8 million per month. Whereas based on PP No. 82 of 2015, a deputy chairman of the KPK can bring home a salary plus allowances of up to hundreds of millions.

"(The decision of the KPK Supervisory Board, ed) is very, very disappointing. It is only Rp. 1.8 million per month," said Sujanarko when contacted by VOI.

In addition, he is also disappointed that the KPK Council did not increase Lili's sentence even though she did not regret her actions even though she was proven to have violated ethics. Thus, he alleged, the decision handed down by Tumpak Hatorangan Panggabean had participated in efforts to weaken the KPK.

Meanwhile, the other reporting party, the inactive KPK investigator Novel Baswedan, asked the KPK Council to report his findings to investigators. This was conveyed through his Twitter account @nazaqistha.

"Dewas has presented the facts of a criminal act. Furthermore, Dewas is obliged to report it to investigators," said Novel.

He then quoted Article 108 paragraph (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code which states that every civil servant in carrying out his duties who knows about the occurrence of an event which is a criminal act is obliged to immediately report it to the investigator or investigator.

So, reflecting on the findings of Tumpak Hatorangan Panggabean et al, they should have reported it. Moreover, this also has something to do with Article 66 of the KPK Law.

"Required to report. This is proof of integrity for the Council," he concluded.