Experts Highlight Weaknesses in Tan Kian's Statement Regarding Alleged Rp40 Billion Fund Flow
The issue of an alleged fund flow worth Rp40 billion from property businessman Tan Kian (TK) to several officials within the Attorney General’s Office (Kejagung) continues to face legal scrutiny. This issue, which emerged during pretrial proceedings related to the alleged Money Laundering (TPPU) case of former Junior Attorney General for Special Crimes (Jampidsus) Febrie Adriansyah (FA), is considered to have weak evidentiary value.
Professor Jamin Ginting, a Professor of Law at Universitas Pelita Harapan (UPH), assessed that Tan Kian’s statements in the Examination Report (BAP) mentioning the Rp40 billion payment are legally weak because the witness did not personally witness or experience the actual process of handing over the money to the prosecution officials. Professor Jamin stated that Tan Kian’s testimony is based merely on suspicion as he did not witness the transaction himself.
He initially noted that if Tan Kian were in the position of a suspect himself, the testimony would have low evidentiary value because a suspect or defendant has the right to deny allegations, and their statements could be incorrect or untruthful. However, he added that if the statement is provided by Tan Kian as a witness for another suspect, the credibility might be higher than before, yet the testimony remains ‘de auditu’ (hearsay). “Because he did not see and experience the direct handover of the money to the Prosecution officials, it is weak,” he said. Nevertheless, he noted that the individuals named in the BAP must provide clarification to avoid defamation.
Meanwhile, prosecution observer Kamilov Sagala believes that Tan Kian’s BAP holds legal value as it is the result of an official investigation and bears official signatures. He suggested that Tan Kian’s testimony could be tested in the main trial to determine whether the Rp40 billion payment to the Attorney General’s Office officials actually occurred. “The BAP can be tested in the upcoming money laundering trial before the panel of judges; it will be clearly revealed whether those high-ranking prosecutors received Rp40 billion. Those who dare to act must be prepared to face the legal consequences,” Sagala stated.
Previously, the legal counsel for former Jampidsus Febrie Adriansyah, Febri Diansyah, expressed doubt regarding the reports that officials at the Attorney General’s Office received Rp40 billion. This doubt arose after it was revealed in the Examination Report (BAP) that Tan Kian was merely speculating regarding the handover of the money. This was stated following the examination of his client as a suspect in the alleged corruption and money laundering case involving PT Asabri and PT Jiwasraya at the Attorney General’s Office in South Jakarta on Tuesday, 8 September 2026.
Febri emphasised that during the examination, his client never received any funds from Tan Kian. Furthermore, investigators did not pose questions regarding other names, including Attorney General ST Burhanuddin, who were rumoured to have received the Rp40 billion. “There were no such questions. But reading the available information and what we saw in the pretrial, we are also not certain that the Attorney General received Rp40 billion as claimed by Tan Kian,” Febri said in Jakarta.
Based on the reading of the BAP, Febri continued, Tan Kian’s statement regarding the fund flow lacks strong legal certainty. Tan Kian reportedly handed the money to an individual named Ferry Hongkiriwang, alias Ferry Boboho, but was unsure where the funds went next. “What Tan Kian stated is that the money was handed to Ferry Hongkiriwang. As for whether that money stopped with Ferry Hongkiriwang, we do not know,” said Febri.
He added that in the BAP, Tan Kian used ambiguous phrasing such as “could be” when discussing the final recipient of the funds. According to Febri, the use of such ambiguous language cannot serve as valid legal evidence. “If he says ‘could be’, it could be true or it could be false. There should be no evidence using such ‘winged’ or ambiguous words. We must be truly careful and clear in following the developments of this legal process,” he noted. Febri stated that he leaves the substance of the case to be revealed transparently and objectively in the upcoming trial.