Febrie's Legal Team Claims Seizure Letter Issued Before Investigation Order
The legal team of former Junior Attorney General for Special Crimes (Jampidsus) Febrie Adriansyah has expressed surprise that the seizure letter for the Sentul house was issued before the investigation order.
This was conveyed by Febrie’s legal counsel, Febri Diansyah, after a pretrial hearing at the South Jakarta District Court on Wednesday (19/8).
The pretrial motion is registered under case number 134/Pid.Pra/2026/PN JKT SEL. Respondent 1 in this case is the Metro Jaya Regional Police, Respondent 2 is the National Police’s Corruption Eradication Corps (Kortas Tipidkor), and the co-respondent is the Attorney General’s Office (Kejagung).
Febri assessed that the answers provided by the National Police and the Attorney General’s Office during the pretrial hearing actually strengthened the motion they filed.
“From the respondents’ answers, we actually found several parts, several statements that strengthen our motion. Of course, we will elaborate further in the conclusion,” he said.
He said one of the things that strengthened the pretrial motion was that the National Police admitted that in the process, Febrie was never examined before being named a suspect.
“First, for example, when it was acknowledged or stated that there was indeed no examination of the prospective suspect in the designation of Mr FA as a suspect at the National Police,” he said.
In addition, the legal team also highlighted the use of electronic documents and screen captures that form part of the case material. Febri said his team had not yet found an explanation regarding the digital forensic process or authentication of the electronic documents.
He explained that this is important to ensure how an electronic document was obtained, whether the data obtained is the same as the data when it was read, and to ensure no changes occurred until the document is used in court proceedings.
“Because we really have to ensure that if there is an electronic document, how it was obtained, whether the acquisition data is the same as when the data was read, and even whether it is the same up to the court proceedings,” he said.
Furthermore, Febri said, the response regarding the seizure also strengthened the pretrial motion argument of his client. According to him, his team did not hear any answer from the respondents that there was a court order regarding the seizure of Febrie’s house.
“Yet in our new Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), seizure must also be carried out based on a court order. We did not find that,” he said.
“Earlier we also found that the seizure letter number was earlier than the investigation letter number. So the seizure letter number is 2931, the investigation letter number is 2932,” he added.
Previously, the National Police’s legal team asserted that investigators had found alleged criminal acts of corruption and money laundering committed by Febrie before he was named a suspect.
The findings of alleged corruption are related to the handling of the PT ASABRI and PT Jiwasraya cases carried out by Febrie. In addition, it is also believed that there was a money laundering offence (TPPU) with the aim of disguising and concealing the origin of assets carried out by Febrie.
The National Police’s legal team asserted that Febrie was involved in alleged corruption and money laundering. Both criminal acts are regulated in special laws, so they fall into the category of special crimes.
In addition, the argument from Febrie’s camp stating that exceptions could apply after a prosecutor is named a suspect was also refuted. This is because in the Constitutional Court ruling, the parameter used is sufficient preliminary evidence, not requiring suspect status first.