Attorney General's Office Insists Febrie Case Is Not Duplication, Asks Pretrial Motion Be Rejected
The Attorney General’s Office has rejected the pretrial motion argument put forward by former Junior Attorney General for Special Crimes Febrie Adriansyah regarding duplication of a suspect designation. Febrie had previously argued that the suspect designation was linked to or shared the same object as an alleged money laundering offence.
The Attorney General’s Office stressed that the term ‘duplication’ is not a prohibition in criminal law that automatically renders a suspect designation invalid.
‘It must first be emphasised that the term duplication is not a principle or prohibition in criminal law that automatically causes a suspect designation to become invalid. Criminal law recognises the nebis in idem principle, not a prohibition against what the Petitioner unilaterally refers to as duplication of a suspect designation,’ said a representative of the Attorney General’s Office legal team when delivering the pretrial response at the South Jakarta District Court on Thursday (20/8/2026).
The Attorney General’s Office explained that the nebis in idem principle is a prohibition against a person being prosecuted a second time in the same case when that case has already received a court ruling with permanent legal force. The provision is regulated in Article 134 of Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code.
‘Thus, there is a very fundamental element in the application of the nebis in idem principle, namely the existence of a case that has been examined and decided by a court and has permanent legal force,’ he said.
The Attorney General’s Office assessed that this provision differs from the duplication alleged by Febrie. The former Jampidsus was considered to have only alleged the existence of more than one suspect designation letter, rather than a repeat prosecution of a case already decided by a court. Therefore, the Attorney General’s Office assessed that the use of the term duplication cannot be used as a basis to cancel the suspect status.
‘Because criminal law does not provide a legal consequence in the form of null and void merely because there is more than one suspect designation. What is expressly prohibited is prosecution for a second time in the same case after a court ruling has obtained permanent legal force, as per the nebis in idem principle in Article 134 of the Criminal Code,’ he said.
The Attorney General’s Office asked the judge to set aside the duplication argument put forward by Febrie and to reject the pretrial motion in its entirety.
‘Based on the entire description, the Petitioner’s argument regarding duplication of the suspect designation should be set aside and rejected in its entirety because it is not based on a legal norm prohibiting more than one suspect designation and does not fulfil the elements of the nebis in idem principle,’ he stressed.
For information, the second pretrial motion filed by Febrie regarding the validity of the suspect designation is registered under case number 135/Pid.Pra/2026/PN JKT.SEL. The Respondent in this case is the Attorney General cq the Junior Attorney General for Special Crimes of the Attorney General’s Office of the Republic of Indonesia.