Trial Of Net89 Robot Trading Fraud Case Worth IDR 4.4 Trillion: The Witness's Important Role In Determining Sentences

The trial of the defendant in the fraudulent investment case Net89/ Photo: IST

TANGERANG - The trial of the PT SMI/Net 89 trading robot fraud case with three defendants Deddy Iwan, Ferdy Iwan and Alwyn Aliwarga with a loss of Rp4.4 trillion, is currently underway at the Tangerang District Court (PN).

It is known that the trial is scheduled to hear the testimony of a criminal law expert witness presented by the South Tangerang Public Prosecutor, Prof Chairul Huda.

During the trial, the expert witness explained to the Panel of Judges regarding SEMA No. 5 of 2021 the Judicial Law which regulates the interconnection between pretrial cases and the subject matter of the case.

According to Chairul Huda, the statements of hundreds of witnesses are one of the supporting evidences in this case. Therefore, he assessed that the process of testing the witness' testimony is currently in the realm of the main court of the case.

"Basically, regardless of how many witnesses there is only one piece of evidence. Let's say like that, the problem is that there is an examination process in the judiciary," he said during the trial, Wednesday, November 1.

"What is certain is that the evidence plus other evidence is enough to become two pieces of evidence (determination of the suspect)," he added.

Furthermore, Chairul Huda said that through an examination in the main court of the case, the Panel of Judges would later be able to determine the quality of the witness in question.

In addition, he said, statements from witnesses were also needed as consideration for the Panel of Judges to decide the sentences of the defendants.

"Are the existing witnesses present to prove the defendant guilty or said otherwise. This is what the subject of the case must be assessed," he said.

Meanwhile, when met outside the trial of the victim's attorneys, Ferry Yuli Irawan and Rachim Syahputra did not comment much on witnesses who were considered of poor quality. According to him, this is the authority of the Panel of Judges.

"In our opinion, the quality or not that determines is the main justice case. The expert witnesses explained the question during the trial," he told reporters, Thursday, November 2.

He only hopes that the interim decision that will be read out by the local government next week can benefit the victim. So that the trial will continue to the main court of the case.

"The hope is that the panel of judges will cancel the exception of the defendant's attorney. With the exception of the defendant, the trial will automatically continue regarding the subject matter, the trial will continue," he explained.

In this case, the officers who acted as the Chief Justice of the Panel of Judges were Arif Budi Cahyono. Meanwhile, for Member Judges, namely Fathul mujib and Achmad irfir.

Previously, the three defendants were deemed to have violated Article 378 of the Criminal Code and/or Article 372 of the Criminal Code and/or Article 45 paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 28 and/or Article 34 paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 50 of Law Number 19 of 2016 concerning Amendments to Law Number 1 of 2008 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions.

Then, Article 69 paragraph 1 of Law Number 3 of 2011 concerning the Crime of Transfer of Funds and/or Article 46 of Law Number 10 of 198 concerning Banking.

In this trial, two of the three defendants filed an exception regarding the Pretrial decision on the indictment of the Public Prosecutor (JPU). Meanwhile, one defendant filed a regular exception in the case of the trading robot fraud trial.