Expert Assesses Strong Indications of Money Laundering in Febrie Adriansyah Case

Money Laundering Crime (TPPU) expert Yenti Garnasih has assessed that the money laundering indications in the case involving former Junior Attorney General for Special Crimes (Jampidsus) at the Attorney General’s Office, Febrie Adriansyah, are quite strong. According to Yenti, one of the suspicions can be seen from the discovery of cash and gold bars when officers conducted a search at Febrie’s residence. She considered that the amount of assets found needs further investigation as it is deemed disproportionate to Febrie’s capacity as a law enforcement officer. “We see that the indication towards that, especially TPPU, is very much there. In his house, there was that amount (of cash and gold bars) which is inappropriate for him,” Yenti told reporters on Wednesday (12/8/2026). Yenti also highlighted the possibility of corruption committed by law enforcement officers while carrying out anti-corruption duties. According to her, such practices can take the form of accepting bribes, gratuities, or even extortion. “There is a possibility that they commit corruption because they fight corruption with corruption. They want to eradicate corruption but they accept bribes or gratuities or extort,” she said. Furthermore, Yenti linked the issue to poor governance and the practices of corruption, collusion, and nepotism (KKN). She assessed that the abuse of authority is one of the factors worsening the situation. “Why is corruption so rampant? This is related to nepotism, KKN, meaning there is an executive problem of abuse of authority or unlawful acts that harm state finances,” she explained. According to Yenti, this condition demonstrates the fragility of the three pillars of state power: the executive, legislative, and judiciary. “This increasingly shows that all three pillars are fragile. The executive, legislative, and judiciary are fragile, tending towards corruption and money laundering,” she added. Besides highlighting the alleged TPPU, Yenti also criticised Febrie’s previous statement claiming he was being criminalised. She clarified that legally, the term refers to an act, not a person. “The term criminalisation is also wrong. As an academic, I must correct this. Criminalisation is a process. For example, we previously did not have a money laundering law, then suddenly we did, that is called criminalising the act of enjoying the proceeds of crime, now called TPPU,” she explained. Yenti explained that naming someone a suspect cannot simply be called criminalisation. According to her, criminalisation relates to the process when an act that was previously not categorised as a crime is then established as a criminal act through legal rules. “What is criminalised is the act. If there is no law, how can I be punished? That is criminalisation,” she said. Therefore, Yenti assessed that the more appropriate term to describe Febrie’s statement is that he feels he has been criminalised. In this context, Febrie allegedly feels he should not be a suspect or have any criminal indications, but was then named a suspect due to alleged abuse of power or pressure from certain parties. “Perhaps what he meant was being criminalised. Meaning, he is saying that he should not have been a suspect, initially there were no indications, then he became a suspect. But, I was forced because of abuse of power or coercion from a superior at that level,” she concluded.