Pretrial Judge Says Febrie Allegedly Received Rp 40 Billion from Tan Kian, Here's Why

Former Deputy Attorney General for Special Crimes (Jampidsus) Febrie Adriansyah allegedly received Rp 40 billion from businessman Tan Kian. The receipt of the money is alleged to be connected to the ASABRI and Jiwasraya corruption cases.

This was revealed in the consideration of sole judge Richard Edwin Basoeki when deciding Febrie’s pretrial motion at the South Jakarta District Court on Thursday (27/8/2026). Initially, the judge stated that the police had obtained statements from a number of witnesses regarding Febrie’s relationship and communication with parties connected to the Jiwasraya and/or ASABRI cases before conducting the search.

The judge mentioned Tan Kian’s statement about the handover of Rp 40 billion to Febrie. The money was given in Singapore dollars.

“Statements regarding the request for a sum of money, statements regarding the handover of Singapore dollar currency with an equivalent value of approximately Rp 40 billion, as well as letters, documents and transaction and communication data which, according to investigators, correspond with one another,” the judge said.

The judge stated that from the witness statements, sufficient preliminary evidence was found, namely at least two pieces of evidence as stipulated in Article 235 paragraph 1 of Law Number 20 of 2025. The judge stated that the pretrial hearing only assessed the legality of the search, seizure and naming of Febrie as a suspect, not the truth of the money transfer.

“Considering that the Judge emphasises that the mention of this evidence does not mean the judge declares that the witness statement about the handover of the money is true or that the Petitioner is proven to have committed a criminal offence. The assessment at the pretrial stage is only to determine whether, before the action was taken, there was an objective basis allowing the exception to the Attorney General’s permit to apply,” the judge said.

The judge assessed that witness statements directly describing the request and handover of money, if obtained before the search and consistent with other documents or information, along with expert testimony explaining the events described by those witnesses, formally met the characteristics of sufficient preliminary evidence. This was for the purpose of applying Constitutional Court Decision Number 15/PUU-XXIII/2025, namely that the Attorney General’s permit requirement in Article 8 paragraph 5 and Article 35 paragraph 1 letter e of the Prosecution Service Law no longer applies if a prosecutor is caught red-handed or involved in a serious crime.

“Considering that because the objective requirements for the exception were available and the criminal offence under investigation is a special criminal offence, the absence of the Attorney General’s permit does not automatically render the search of premises related to the Petitioner unlawful,” the judge said.

The judge emphasised that the pretrial hearing did not assess the truth of Tan Kian’s statement regarding the Rp 40 billion payment to Febrie. The judge rejected Febrie’s pretrial motion in its entirety, with case registration number 134 Pid.Pra/2026/PN JKT.SEL.

“Considering that one of the statements cited as part of the evidentiary construction is Tan Kian’s statement regarding the handover of money in Singapore dollar currency with an equivalent value of 40 billion to the petitioner, which we repeat, to the petitioner, which according to that statement is related to the legal issues of Jiwasraya and/or ASABRI,” the judge said.

“Considering that in a pretrial hearing, the judge is not permitted to continue the examination to the point of determining whether Tan Kian’s statement is true,” he added.

In this pretrial motion, Febrie is the petitioner. The respondents are the Metro Jaya Regional Police and the Police Corruption Eradication Corps (Kortas Tipikor Polri), with the Attorney General’s Office (Kejagung) as a co-respondent.

In addition to this pretrial motion, Febrie has also filed a second pretrial motion with case registration number 135/Pid.Pra/2026/PB JKT.SEL. This pretrial motion concerns the legality of the forced measure of naming him a suspect.

The respondent in this pretrial motion is the Attorney General cq the Junior Attorney General for Special Crimes at the Attorney General’s Office. The ruling hearing for this pretrial motion will be held on Friday (28/8) tomorrow.