Indonesian Political, Business & Finance News

Former KPK Leader States State Loss Calculations Should Not Be Monopolised by BPK

| | Source: MEDIA_INDONESIA Translated from Indonesian | Legal
Former KPK Leader States State Loss Calculations Should Not Be Monopolised by BPK
Image: MEDIA_INDONESIA

The former Deputy Chairman of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), Amien Sunaryadi, has requested that the calculation of state financial losses in corruption cases should not be monopolised by the Audit Board of Indonesia (BPK). He believes such a monopoly undermines the rights of defendants and renders court proceedings unfair.

Amien considers the Circular Letter (SE) issued by the Attorney General’s Office to be a more appropriate guideline than granting absolute authority to the BPK. The Circular Letter, signed by the Junior Attorney General for Special Crimes, Febrie Adriansyah, stipulates that in proving corruption crimes—specifically regarding the calculation of state financial losses—state institutions should not only coordinate with the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP) and the BKS, but may also coordinate with other relevant agencies.

“The calculation of state financial losses for the purposes of criminal corruption proceedings should practically not be monopolised by the BPK. Therefore, the Attorney General’s Circular Letter is more appropriate to follow,” Amien stated during a Public Hearing with the Legislative Body (Baleg) of the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI) in the Parliament Complex, Senayan, Jakarta, on Monday.

Amien exposed weaknesses regarding the independence of BPK audit results, claiming that the institution’s calculation methods are often not objective due to external interventions or fear. “What is more important is the method of calculation. From my experience and observations, the BPK’s methods for calculating state losses are often inaccurate. There may be pressure or fear involved, forcing certain figures to be reported. We need standardised, transparent methods taught to many parties,” he explained.

Furthermore, Amien analysed the issue through the lens of formal law based on the newly implemented national Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). According to standard judicial rules, valid evidence of state losses in court can only be classified into two forms: expert testimony or official written reports.

“According to the evidence rules in the new KUHAP, the only evidence capable of presenting state loss figures is expert testimony and documents. In the KUHAP, there is no evidence titled ‘BPK’ or ‘BPKP’. There is only expert testimony and documents. Therefore, if we adhere to the KUHAP, it must follow that path,” he clarified.

He reminded the assembly of the legal principle that an ‘expert’ refers to an individual with specific expertise, not a state institution. “Under the KUHAP, an expert is defined as a person, not an institution. Therefore, an expert is not the BPK. Furthermore, in court, the right to present experts or documents belongs to both the Public Prosecutor and the defendant. If the defendant is prohibited from presenting expert evidence or documents, the trial is unjust. Structurally and systematically, the trial becomes unfair.”

Amien criticised regulations that mandate state losses are only valid if calculated by official state institutions. He argued that if such a system is enforced, the function of judges and courts becomes redundant, as a verdict of guilt would effectively be predetermined by the institution recording the losses.

“Because of this, state financial losses must be able to be presented by both the Prosecutor and the defendant, usually through their advocates. If state losses are defined as only being valid when calculated by a state institution, the defendant loses the right to present experts. Since state institutions will not assist the defendant, the verdict of guilt or innocence would be decided by the entity calculating the loss, rendering the judge and the court unnecessary,” he elaborated.

Finally, Amien warned that if these restrictions persist in corruption courts, Indonesia’s legal credibility on the global stage will suffer. He urged the courts to provide equal space for defendants to present counter-experts to test the validity of the loss figures alleged by prosecutors.

View JSON | Print