Prosecutors confident judge will reject extortion defendant's exception plea at Central Jakarta District Court

Jakarta (ANTARA) - Public prosecutors are confident the panel of judges at the Central Jakarta District Court will reject the exception or objection filed by defendant Bangun Paulus Tudungta in the alleged extortion case against a young businessman, Vinson Leo Carlius.

Prosecutor Andri Saputra said the material of the exception submitted by the defendant’s legal counsel had already entered the substance of the case, and was therefore considered to fall outside the limits of objection material as regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP).

“So in my interpretation, the exception or objection is entirely outside the material of an exception as referred to in Article 206. The judge should therefore reject the legal counsel’s exception,” Andri said after the continuation of the hearing at the Central Jakarta District Court on Wednesday.

According to Andri, the material of an exception is regulated in Article 206 paragraph (1) of Law Number 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code. The provision regulates the limits of objections that may be raised by a defendant or their legal counsel.

He explained that there are three categories of exception material, namely those relating to the relative or absolute competence of the court, an indictment that cannot be accepted, and an indictment that is not careful or does not meet the material requirements.

The category of an indictment that cannot be accepted, Andri said, includes matters relating to nebis in idem, where the same case has already been decided, and error in persona, or a mistake regarding the party being charged.

“This exception actually only tests the formal aspects of the indictment. Whether the indictment has been signed, whether the date is wrong, whether the person we are charging is correct, such as error in persona. Or whether the description in the indictment is unclear, or the article cited is different, that sort of thing,” he said.

Andri assessed that the objections raised by the defendant’s legal counsel, which had already discussed the substance of the alleged extortion, should be tested at the evidentiary stage of the case.

According to him, the question of whether or not there was a threat of violence, extortion, or loss is a matter of the substance of the case that must be proven through witness testimony, evidence, and expert testimony.

“The indictment that has been prepared is in accordance with Article 75 paragraph (2) of Law Number 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code. The indictment already states the complete identity, the location of the alleged criminal act, and is described carefully, clearly, and completely,” he said.

For that reason, Andri expects the exception filed by the defendant’s legal counsel to be rejected by the panel of judges.

“So most likely, in my interpretation, the exception will probably be rejected. Because it can only be proven in court regarding whether there was a threat of violence, whether there was a loss. That will be based on the testimony of witnesses, other evidence, or experts,” he explained.

“We will study it in detail first. Next week, on Wednesday (26/8), we will deliver the Public Prosecutor’s response to the objection from the legal counsel,” he said.

Previously, the defendant’s legal counsel, Ani Puspitasari and Kandar Halim Munthe, assessed that the public prosecutor’s indictment was not careful and was vague.

The legal counsel team asked the panel of judges to accept and grant the exception and to declare the public prosecutor’s indictment Number Reg. Perkara PDM-321/M.1.10/06/2026 null and void by law, or at the very least inadmissible.

The legal counsel also requested that the examination of criminal case Number 399/Pid.B/2026/PN Jkt.Pst be terminated and that the defendant be released from the state detention centre, and that the defendant’s rights be restored.

The continuation of the hearing in the case is scheduled for Wednesday (26/8) with the agenda of the public prosecutor’s response to the exception or objection from the defendant’s legal counsel.