Expert: Sudden Search in Ex-Jampidsus Case Part of Legal Strategy
A criminal law expert from the University of Mataram (Unram), Ufran Trisa, has assessed that the sudden search conducted by investigators from the Corruption Eradication Task Force (Kortas Tipidkor) of the Indonesian National Police in the case involving former Junior Attorney General for Special Crimes (JAM-Pidsus) Febrie Adriansyah is justifiable under criminal procedure law. Ufran explained that the confidentiality of the search is part of an investigative strategy to prevent the destruction of evidence and witness intervention, particularly in cases involving high-ranking officials.
Ufran dismissed the notion that the naming of a suspect is procedurally flawed if the individual has not been examined beforehand. He referred to the Constitutional Court Decision Number 21/PUU-XII/2014, stating that the right to be examined as a prospective suspect is a legal consideration (ratio decidendi) and not an absolute requirement that invalidates a suspect determination in every case characteristic.
"The sudden search action can be justified as long as it is carried out based on legitimate authority and procedures. The confidentiality of the search does not mean the suspect’s rights are ignored, but rather is part of the investigation strategy to prevent evidence from being destroyed," Ufran said during a public discussion titled "Uncovering Money Laundering and Alleged Intellectual Actors Behind the Ex-Jampidsus Case" organised by the Millennial Activist Network (JAM) online on Friday (24/7).
Beyond reviewing the search procedure, Ufran detailed three fundamental aspects that investigators must prove if pursuing alleged money laundering (TPPU) charges in this case. First, the link to the predicate crime; investigators must prove that the seized assets, such as cash and gold, are the proceeds of corruption, bribery, or gratification. Second, the involvement of the beneficial owner; investigators must unravel the relationship between the discovered assets and the party who actually controls and enjoys the economic benefits of those assets, even if they are administratively registered under another person’s name. Third, the effort to disguise assets; investigators must prove there was a deliberate act to conceal or disguise the origin of the criminal proceeds.
Ufran added that there are several common money laundering methods frequently used by financial criminals, including storing cash outside the banking system, converting funds into valuable assets like gold, and using the names of other parties (nominees) to control asset ownership. "If these three connections can be proven, then the construction of the money laundering crime becomes much stronger. Without such proof, the assets found will only be considered suspicious wealth," he explained.