On Appeal, UGM Expert: Prosecutors Perfectly Entitled to Pursue Potential Economic Loss Claims

A criminal law expert from Universitas Gadjah Mada, Muhammad Fatahillah Akbar, has stated that although the Attorney General’s appeal may not necessarily be granted by the high court, the move is entirely legitimate. The prosecutors are entitled to continue advocating for their conviction that potential economic losses to the state exist.

“The appeal is being pursued due to a difference of opinion between the prosecutors and the judges. The prosecutors believe their view is correct but the judges deemed it inappropriate. This is something that is entirely legitimate and reasonable to do,” said Fatahillah.

He explained that the judges in this case hold the position that state losses must be tangible and certain, in line with a Constitutional Court ruling during material review that requires state losses to be definite rather than potential losses.

“There is a possibility the appeal will be rejected by the high court judges if it relates to calculating potential economic losses to the state. However, if the prosecutors’ perspective is that potential economic losses can be calculated, then it is legally legitimate to file an appeal,” he said.

Fatahillah believes there is a need for an agreed-upon methodology for calculating potential economic losses to the state. This way, neither the defendants nor the government would be disadvantaged by disputes over economic losses to the state.

The Attorney General’s Office has formally filed an appeal against a decision in a crude oil governance corruption case involving nine defendants, including Muhammad Kerry Adrianto and others. One of the fundamental objections concerns the calculation of potential economic losses to the state, which the prosecutors believe was not adequately incorporated into the court’s judgment.

The prosecutors sought compensation totalling Rp13.4 trillion, comprising state financial losses of Rp2.9 trillion and economic losses of Rp10.5 trillion. The judges only approved the claim for financial losses of Rp2.9 trillion, whilst rejecting the Rp10.5 trillion in economic losses on the grounds that the judges regarded it as merely an assumption.