Lawyers call indictment 'manipulative'<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Lawyers of a warden being tried for allegedly
\nhelping a business tycoon to escape from prison last May called
\nthe prosecutor's indictment \"manipulative\" in court yesterday.<\/p>\n
\"Responsibility for the escape of Eddy Tansil should be
\nshouldered collectively by those in charge of the prison, not on
\nthe defendant himself, who only carried out orders from his
\nsuperior,\" lawyer Arief Susijamto, a member of the team of
\nlawyers from the Jakarta Legal Aid Institute, told the East
\nJakarta District Court.<\/p>\n
He said the prosecutor's indictment was manipulative because
\nit did not demand that the commandant of the prison guards
\nand the penitentiary's chief warden be held responsible for the
\nincident.<\/p>\n
Prison warden DH, alias Dudung, was commandant of the jail's
\nthird platoon of guards who allegedly received a Rp 1 million
\nbribe from Tansil.<\/p>\n
Eddy Tansil's escape from the Cipinang penitentiary was
\nallegedly assisted by five prison employees.<\/p>\n
The four other defendants, MH, Mar, Soep and SM are being
\ntried separately in the same court. They are all being charged
\nunder Article 419 of the Criminal Code and the 1971
\nAnticorruption Law.<\/p>\n
Dudung's team of lawyers also said that the indictment was
\nunclear because it did not explain how the prosecutor concluded
\nthat Tansil had escaped. The lawyers said the explanation was a
\ncrucial point to prosecute their client.<\/p>\n
\"We deem it necessary that the prosecutor demand an
\nexplanation from the Cipinang penitentiary's chief warden,
\nbecause Eddy Tansil was under his supervision,\" Arief told the
\ncourt presided over by Judge Soenarto.<\/p>\n
Tansil, owner of the Golden Key Group, was sentenced to 20
\nyears in August 1994 for defrauding Bank Pembangunan Indonesia
\n(Bapindo) of US$640 million. It was the biggest bank fraud in
\nIndonesian banking history.<\/p>\n
Dudung's lawyers also questioned the use of the 1971
\nAnticorruption Law in the indictment because the bribe amounted
\nonly to a tip and did not go along with the \"enriching oneself\"
\nclause.<\/p>\n
\"Even bigger cases of corruption in the country revealed
\nrecently by the Development and Finance Comptroller are not
\nfollowed up seriously by the related authorities, including
\nprosecutors,\" the team said.<\/p>\n
Article 419 states that any government employee who accepts a
\ngift while knowing that it is intended to influence his or her
\nwork is liable to five years imprisonment, while those who are
\nfound guilty of violating the 1971 Law could face a maximum 20-
\nyear prison term and a Rp 30 million fine.<\/p>\n
Judge Soenarto adjourned the court until Sep. 23.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, the same court also heard the prosecutor's reply to
\na rebuttal from lawyers of another prison warden, MH.<\/p>\n
Prosecutor Azizul Hakim maintained his earlier indictment that
\nthe defendant could be charged under Article 419 of the Criminal
\nCode and the 1971 Anticorruption Law.<\/p>\n
In their rebuttal, MH's lawyers had earlier asked the court to
\ndrop the charges against their client, arguing that the 1971
\nAnticorruption Law could not be applied in their client's case.<\/p>\n
The hearing on the other prison warden, SM, was adjourned
\nuntil next week. (26)<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/lawyers-call-indictment-manipulative-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}