Attorney General's Appeals Strategy Described as Crucial to Prevent Major State Losses
Jakarta — A legal expert and Dean of the Law Faculty at Hasanuddin University (Unhas) in Makassar, Prof. Hamzah Halim, stated that prosecuting state losses in the form of potential loss (potential loss) by the Attorney General (Kejagung) in corruption cases has strategic benefits in law enforcement, particularly in protecting state finances from greater losses.
Prof. Hamzah observed that the prosecutor’s approach of pursuing potential loss claims is beneficial and important for preventing larger state losses. By using the concept of potential loss, prosecutors can take action against corrupt conduct early, before actual state losses occur.
“This means the state does not have to wait until state money is truly lost. It is sufficient to prove that such conduct genuinely has the potential to harm the state,” said Prof. Hamzah. This is particularly important in cases involving government contracts, procurement of goods and services, and state-owned enterprise investments.
Previously, the Attorney General officially filed an appeal against a court verdict in an alleged corruption case involving crude oil governance that involved nine defendants, including Muhammad Kerry Adrianto and others. The prosecutors demanded replacement funds totalling Rp13.4 trillion, comprising state financial losses of Rp2.9 trillion and economic losses of Rp10.5 trillion. Of this demand, the judge granted only Rp2.9 trillion (state financial losses), whilst the Rp10.5 trillion in losses was rejected because the judge considered it merely an assumption.
The strategy of prosecuting potential loss, according to Prof. Hamzah, will also strengthen the preventive function of corruption criminal law. Consequently, public officials will be more cautious in making decisions, as conduct with the potential to harm the state can be subject to criminal penalties.
Moreover, this approach will close loopholes in corruption crimes. According to him, many corruption schemes are executed through contract manipulation, price manipulation, and investment policies that are deliberately directed.
At an early stage, Prof. Hamzah noted, state losses are often not yet realised in practice. “If the law only waits for actual loss, then many corruption perpetrators could escape, because losses have not yet had the chance to occur formally,” said Prof. Hamzah.
The concept of potential loss, in his view, provides broader protection of state finances. Because in the practice of state financial management, losses often occur gradually and begin with policies that risk harming the state.
When asked about the absence of an Asset Confiscation Law and the continued disregard of claims against defendants for potential economic losses, Prof. Hamzah stated that without strong legal instruments for asset recovery, the state finds it difficult to maximise recovery of state losses and create a deterrent effect against corruption.
The draft Asset Confiscation Bill is considered important because it offers the concept that assets can be confiscated without having to wait for a final criminal verdict if the legitimate source of the assets cannot be explained.
“Corruption perpetrators must prove that their assets were obtained legitimately. If wealth is disproportionate to legitimate income, the state can pursue confiscation. This approach is widely used in other countries that follow the United Nations Convention against Corruption,” explained Prof. Hamzah.