Attorney general criticized for failing to recover state assets
Abdul Khalik, Jakarta
Observers claimed on Friday that bribery and poor coordination between law enforcers were behind the low recovery rate of state assets in corruption cases prosecuted by the Attorney General's Office.
Legal expert Pradjoto said the low rate of recovery reflected the failure of the office to eradicate corruption in the country due to its lack of commitment to saving state assets.
"I don't believe that they can't confiscate corruptors' assets because it is easy to do so if they have a strong commitment. I suspect that these corruptors bribed the prosecutors," Pradjoto told The Jakarta Post.
A press release issued by the Attorney General's Office on Wednesday revealed that during a two-year period, the office brought to court some 1,200 cases that have caused Rp 22 trillion (US$2.35 billion) in state losses, but had managed to recover only Rp 1.2 billion.
Pradjoto said the corruptors controlled huge amounts of assets or cash that could be used to bribe state officials.
"That's why I suggest that the prosecutors confiscate the corruptors' assets first before bringing them to court. In that way, these corruptors won't be able to do anything," said Pradjoto.
Pradjoto, who is a legal consultant of BNI, said the case involving Rp 1.7 trillion in the bank's assets set a precedent for all prime suspects, who were able to avoid prosecution because they still owned such a huge amount of money.
He said with Rp 300 billion to Rp 400 billion on hand they could bribe any state official to enable them to escape prosecution.
Another legal expert Yunus Husein of the Financial Transactions and Report Analysis Center (PPATK) said it was difficult for the prosecutors to reclaim state assets because they could not enforce Law No. 25/2003 on money laundering.
"In corruption cases, only the police can use the law on money laundering while the prosecutors can only apply the law on corruption. The Money Laundering Law will enable law enforcers to confiscate assets or freeze account without a court order or permission from Bank Indonesia," Yunus told the Post.
He also said the law applied a reversed burden of the proof, which requires suspects of corruption to prove that all of their assets were generated legally.
Yunus said it would be impossible to confiscate assets from suspects in corruption cases without good understanding and cooperation among the police, prosecutors and judges.
"All of these law enforcers can discuss how to save the state assets. If they think that it is best for the state that they confiscate the assets first before the trial then they can do so without violating the law," he said.
Responding the office's claim that they were successful in bringing all the suspects of corruption to court, both Pradjoto and Yunus agreed that it was useless to punish them without recovering the assets.