Attorney General's Office Awaits Judge's Ruling on Request to Return Febrie Adriansyah's Seized Evidence

The Attorney General’s Office (Kejagung) has chosen to await the pretrial judge’s ruling regarding a request by the legal team of former Junior Attorney General for Special Crimes (Jampidsus) Febrie Adriansyah for the return of evidence seized from his family’s home. The request was submitted during a pretrial hearing at the South Jakarta District Court on Tuesday (18/8/2026). The items were previously seized from the Febrie family home in the Sentul City area, Bogor Regency.

Head of the AGO’s Legal Information Centre (Kapuspenkum), Anang Supriatna, said his office respects the ongoing legal process and will leave the assessment to the pretrial judge. “Regarding the return of evidence, we will simply await the ruling. It is a petition, so we will just wait for the pretrial judge’s decision,” Anang said in his statement on Thursday (20/8).

According to Anang, the seizure of the items was part of investigators’ efforts to strengthen the investigation process, including confirming the ownership link to the location that was searched. “Perhaps it is part of the investigation strategy to establish that the items and the location do indeed belong to Mr FA,” he said.

Anang also responded to objections from Febrie’s side regarding the determination of suspect status against his client. He said pretrial proceedings are a mechanism available to parties who wish to challenge the legal process. “That is fine, please go ahead. There is a pretrial mechanism. It is one of the objects, so please proceed. The pretrial judge will then weigh the objections, both from the petitioner and the respondent’s response,” he said.

Previously, Febrie’s lawyer, Febri Diansyah, asked the judge to rule that a number of items seized from his client’s family home cannot be used as evidence in the case. “They cannot be used as evidence in the a quo case and must be returned to the party from whom the items were seized,” Febri said during the pretrial hearing at the South Jakarta District Court on Tuesday (18/8).

Febri highlighted that the search warrant application for the Sentul house was deemed not to include a lawful and specific description of the location or the factual basis. According to him, a search warrant application should not be made in a general and unbounded manner. The application, Febri said, must clearly explain the location to be searched, the type of items sought, and the facts and reasons underlying the search.

Febri said this provision is in line with Article 113 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), which stipulates that a search warrant application must specify the location and the facts forming the basis for suspicion that evidence of a criminal offence exists at that location. The objections regarding the seizure of evidence and Febrie’s suspect status now form part of the material to be considered by the judge in the pretrial process.

Anang stated that the examination was conducted to obtain evidence, clarify the construction of the case, and trace assets suspected to originate from criminal proceeds.