Febrie's Camp Hopes Judge Delivers Fair Ruling in Pretrial Hearing

The legal team of Junior Attorney General for Special Crimes, Febrie Adriansyah, has asked the sole judge in the South Jakarta District Court pretrial hearing to deliver a fair and independent ruling. This was conveyed by Febrie’s legal counsel, Hermawanto, after the continued hearing with the agenda of submitting conclusions at the South Jakarta District Court on Wednesday (26/8). On that occasion, he expressed appreciation for the entire trial process that has taken place and for the panel of judges’ message that no party should intervene. “We also thank the respondent, who has always attended on time and followed this trial with full seriousness,” he explained.

The pretrial hearing, he said, demonstrates seriousness in testing the legal procedures used in naming Febrie as a suspect. He stressed that all legal issues should be testable through the courtroom. Hermawanto also highlighted the panel of judges’ message asking the petitioner, the respondent, and the public not to intervene in the trial process. “This is an interesting message for all of us so that the judge, in making a decision later, will be independent, free, and will make the fairest possible decision,” he said.

Furthermore, he reiterated the main argument of Febrie’s camp in the pretrial motion. According to him, the trial has made it clear that the predicate offence forming the basis for naming Febrie as a suspect remains unclear. He said a number of assets allegedly linked to Febrie cannot be separated from the issue of the predicate offence. In addition, he assessed that in the suspect determination document tested during the trial, the predicate offence was not clearly stated. “Yesterday’s trial proved and clarified that the suspect determination against the petitioner, Mr FA (Febrie Adriansyah), has no predicate offence. It is not yet clear,” he said.

Hermawanto considered this condition inconsistent with the principles in money laundering cases. According to him, an alleged money laundering offence must have a predicate offence as its basis. “The principle is that there is no money laundering offence without a predicate offence, without the initial offence,” he said. Therefore, he asked the judge to consider the facts that emerged during the trial in making a decision. “These facts show that the suspect determination is not in line with the principles of money laundering,” he concluded.

Previously, the Attorney General’s Office asserted that Febrie’s statement about the predicate offence being unclear or unproven was very mistaken and contrary to applicable legal provisions. The AGO’s legal team said the suspect determination had explicitly stated corruption as the predicate offence. “And the investigation of money laundering does not have to wait for the predicate offence to be proven first,” said the AGO’s legal team when providing a response. In addition, the content of the suspect determination letter in the considering clause letter b also explicitly states that the case being investigated is an alleged money laundering offence with the predicate offence of alleged corruption and/or in another legal handling process. The AGO’s legal team also expressed surprise that Febrie, in his lawsuit, acknowledged that the suspect determination clearly contained an alleged money laundering offence with the predicate offence being corruption. Although, the AGO said, Febrie then questioned its scope and tempus delicti. Therefore, the AGO assessed that the petitioner’s argument stating the predicate crime was unclear contradicted the document that was actually submitted and quoted by the petitioner himself.