Loss Of Pretrial Concerning The Money Laundering Case Of PT Titan, Bareskrim Will Create New Sprindik

JAKARTA - The Criminal Investigation Unit of the National Police has stated that it will issue a new investigative order (sprindik) related to cases of alleged fraud, embezzlement, and money laundering with reported PT Tintan Infra Energi.

This new sprindik was made to follow up on the results of the pretrial which was won by PT Tintan Infra Energi.

"If it's called a pretrial, it's formal, depending on the material. So we'll make a new test. It doesn't matter, we'll propose a new one," said the Director of Special Economic Crimes at the Indonesian National Police, Brigadier General Whisnu Hermawan, when confirmed, Wednesday, June 29.

Even though he lost in the pretrial stage, Whisnu emphasized that the investigation process and case investigation would continue. Basically handling using the new sprindik.

"Keep going, there's no problem," said Whisnu.

The South Jakarta District Court decided to win the Titan Infra Energi pretrial lawsuit related to the investigation and investigation of cases of alleged fraud, embezzlement, and money laundering.

"Declare that the action of the Respondent (Dirpidsus Bareskrim) conducting investigations and investigations based on the Police Report Number: LP/B/0753/XII/2021/SPKT/BARESKRIM. POLRI dated December 16, 2021 is invalid with all the legal consequences," reads the verdict of the District Court South Jakarta was quoted from the South Jakarta District Court's Case Investigation Information System (SIPP).

Not only that, the results of the pretrial also determined that the search and confiscation of evidence was invalid.

"Declaring that the search on April 21, 2022 is invalid. To state that the confiscation of goods and/or documents belonging to the Applicant and belonging to the Applicant's subsidiaries is invalid," he wrote.

Then, the Police were also ordered to immediately return goods and/or documents belonging to PT Titan and belonging to PT Titan's subsidiaries. "Charging court fees to the Respondent in the amount of nil," he said.