Defence Counsel Highlights Four Errors in Prosecutors' Demands in Richard Plea
The legal counsel for Richard Arief Muljadi has submitted a plea in the trial of the alleged embezzlement case against their client. The legal team believes the demand by the Public Prosecutor (JPU) for Richard to be sentenced to three years and six months in prison contains errors in viewing the legal relationships and the series of transactions that form the basis of the case.
In the hearing on Thursday (20/8), Richard’s legal team from CH Advocates asked the panel of judges to acquit their client or at least release Richard from all legal charges.
Richard’s lawyer, Candra Sinaga, said there are four main issues that form the basis of the defence. One of them concerns the legal relationship between Richard, Rendy, PT Magnus Neotech Dynaco (PT MND), PT Aditya Global Mining (PT AGM), and PT Semesta Borneo Abadi (PT SBA).
“First, the chain of legal events that formed the legal relationship between PT Magnus Neotech Dynaco and PT Aditya Global Mining is purely within the civil domain. Richard has the position of both investor and creditor,” said Candra, quoted on Monday (24/8).
According to him, Richard has invested Rp4.45 billion as an investor. In addition, on 16 and 17 July 2024, Richard provided a loan of Rp3 billion to Rendy. Thus, the total funds said to have been disbursed by Richard reached Rp7.45 billion.
Candra explained that the cooperation between PT MND and PT AGM relates to the shipment of coal from stockpile to stockroom. Meanwhile, the coal sale and purchase agreement between PT AGM and PT SBA is considered a different legal relationship.
“The core of the cooperation agreement between PT MND and PT AGM is the shipment of coal, namely from stockpile to stockroom. Meanwhile, the coal sale and purchase agreement between PT AGM and PT SBA has no legal relationship with Richard or PT MND,” he said.
The legal team also questioned the calculation of the alleged embezzlement of Rp7,794,459,565 which forms the basis of the charges against Richard.
Candra said the facts of the trial show that PT SBA did disburse funds of Rp16.1625 billion. However, according to him, these funds were distributed to several parties and were not entirely controlled by Richard.
“The question is, to whom was the Rp16.1625 billion given? The facts of the trial revealed that Rp4.75 billion went to CV Banua Tuntung Pandang and Rp8.318 billion went to PT BAJM,” said Candra.
Of that total, around Rp13.068 billion is said to have flowed to the two parties. Meanwhile, the remaining approximately Rp3.093 billion was transferred on 31 July 2024 to PT AGM through a Bank Mandiri account in the name of Ayu Tantri.
According to Candra, the transfer was made because it used an account in the same bank and at the request of PT SBA. Richard, he said, did not know about or was not involved in the entire flow of these funds.
“Richard never controlled the money from the outset. Therefore, we question how the construction of the alleged embezzlement of Rp7.794 billion can be charged to our client,” he said.
The legal counsel also highlighted the receipt of Rp2.3 billion by Richard from Rendy. The legal team stated that the money was a partial debt repayment, not control of funds belonging to PT SBA.
Candra explained that the debt agreement between Richard and Rendy was Rp3 billion with a maximum repayment period of two weeks from 17 July 2024.
“When Richard received information about the shipment proceeds of Rp3.093 billion, Richard asked for his debt to be repaid,” explained Candra.
Rendy then only agreed to pay Rp2.3 billion. That amount was received by Richard as partial debt repayment.
“So, from Richard’s total investment and receivables of Rp7.45 billion, Rendy has only returned Rp2.3 billion. We question the basis of the calculation that then places Richard as the party deemed to have caused a loss to PT SBA of Rp7.794 billion,” he said.
Candra said the receipt should be seen in the context of the debt relationship between Richard and Rendy.
“Richard received Rp2.3 billion as debt repayment. Therefore, we do not get an accurate calculation of how the receipt of that debt repayment was then constructed as embezzlement,” said Candra.
Another issue highlighted by the legal team is the civil relationship between PT MND and PT AGM and the relationship between PT SBA and PT AGM. According to them, the two relationships are independent and cannot be combined in the construction of Richard’s criminal case.
“The cooperation agreement between PT MND and PT AGM is an independent entity. Likewise, the coal sale and purchase agreement between PT SBA and PT AGM is an independent entity. The two cannot be forced into a single legal relationship,” said Candra.
According to him, Richard only became aware of the issue between PT SBA and PT AGM in mid-September 2024. At that time, Richard reportedly learned that PT SBA had twice sent a letter of demand to PT AGM.
Candra said Richard actually tried to help resolve the issue. On 30 September 2024, PT SBA and PT AGM made a Joint Agreement Letter with Richard in the position of a witness who provided a priority guarantee to PT SBA.
“This means that even though PT AGM or Rendy also had obligations to Richard through PT MND, Richard chose to step aside to help resolve the issue between PT SBA and PT AGM,” said Candra.
In the plea, the legal team stated that they had submitted 33 pieces of documentary evidence. The defence is also based on the testimony of 10 factual witnesses and legal experts who have been examined during the trial.
“We have submitted 33 pieces of evidence and previously also heard the testimony of 10 factual witnesses and legal experts. In our view, these facts essentially support the defence,” he said.