{
    "success": true,
    "data": {
        "id": 1881352,
        "msgid": "expert-search-in-febrie-adriansyah-case-can-be-justified-1784987580",
        "date": "2026-07-25 19:38:53",
        "title": "Expert: Search in Febrie Adriansyah case can be justified",
        "author": "",
        "source": "ANTARA_ID",
        "tags": "",
        "topic": "Legal",
        "summary": "A criminal law expert has stated that the police search in the case involving former junior attorney general for special crimes Febrie Adriansyah is legally justifiable. The expert emphasised that such actions are valid as long as they are based on lawful authority and procedures, particularly to prevent the destruction of evidence. The commentary also addressed the legal requirements for proving money laundering and the purpose of examining potential suspects.",
        "content": "<p>\u2026 as long as it is based on lawful authority and procedure.<\/p>\n<p>Criminal law expert Ufran Trisa of the University of Mataram has\nassessed that the search action taken by the police in handling the case\ninvolving former Deputy Attorney General for Special Crimes (Jampidsus)\nFebrie Adriansyah can be justified.<\/p>\n<p>According to Ufran, secrecy in a search is precisely what is needed\nin cases involving high-ranking officials or those with extensive\nnetworks, in order to prevent the loss of evidence or disruption to the\ninvestigation, as long as it is carried out on the basis of lawful\nauthority and in accordance with criminal procedure law.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cA search conducted suddenly can be justified as long as it is\ncarried out based on lawful authority and procedure,\u201d said Ufran in a\nwritten statement received in Jakarta on Saturday.<\/p>\n<p>He assessed that if a search plan were known in advance, there would\nbe a risk of electronic evidence being deleted, documents being\ndestroyed, witnesses being influenced, or statements between parties\nbeing coordinated, which could hamper the process of proof.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, he also explained that Constitutional Court Decision\nNumber 21\/PUU-XII\/2014 governs the importance of giving a suspect\ncandidate the opportunity to provide a statement.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIt is not appropriate to conclude that investigators are obliged to\nexamine a person first before naming them as a suspect in every case.\nThe assessment must be tailored to the characteristics of the case being\nhandled,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of examining a suspect candidate, he continued, is not to\nprovide an opportunity to dispose of evidence, but rather to give the\nperson concerned room to explain the evidence already gathered by\ninvestigators, so that the process of naming a suspect is not carried\nout arbitrarily (an abuse of power).<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, Ufran said that proving a money laundering case (TPPU)\nis not sufficient merely by finding assets of significant value; it must\nalso be able to demonstrate a connection between those assets and the\nunderlying predicate crime, as well as the existence of efforts to hide\nor obscure the origin of the wealth.<\/p>",
        "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/expert-search-in-febrie-adriansyah-case-can-be-justified-1784987580",
        "image": ""
    },
    "sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
    "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}