Corruption Suspects Can Be Named Without Prior Questioning, Says Legal Expert

A legal expert has stated that the designation of a person as a suspect in corruption or money laundering (TPPU) cases does not always have to be preceded by an examination as a prospective suspect. However, the process must still fulfil legal requirements, particularly the existence of at least two valid pieces of evidence. This view was conveyed by legal expert Professor Henry Indraguna. According to him, Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014 has provided limitations so that the designation of a suspect is not carried out arbitrarily. “The designation of a suspect in corruption or TPPU cases must be based on at least two valid pieces of evidence,” said the Professor at Sultan Agung Islamic University (Unissula) Semarang on Monday, 27 July 2026. Henry explained that a report of an alleged crime, an audit result, or a single witness statement is not sufficient as a basis for naming a suspect. Investigators, he said, must possess at least two interconnected pieces of evidence as stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). On the other hand, he considers the examination of a prospective suspect to remain important as part of the principle of due process of law. Through such an examination, a person has the opportunity to provide clarification, refute evidence, or submit exculpatory evidence. Nevertheless, Henry emphasised that there is no provision in the KUHAP or the Corruption Eradication Law stating that a suspect designation is automatically void if the prospective suspect has never been examined. “There is no provision stating that a suspect designation is automatically void just because the prospective suspect has never been examined,” he said. He added that under certain conditions, such as when a person has been legally summoned but fails to appear or flees, investigators can still name them as a suspect as long as the evidentiary requirements have been met. Besides discussing the requirements for naming a suspect, Henry also explained the link between corruption cases and TPPU. According to him, corruption is a predicate crime that can serve as the basis for a TPPU investigation. He explained that TPPU is a follow-up crime aimed at hiding or disguising the proceeds of crime, whether through transferring funds, purchasing assets, using another party’s name, or transferring assets abroad.