Silmy Karim's Pre-trial Motion Rejected, KPK Search and Seizure Declared Valid

A single judge at the South Jakarta District Court, Yuliana, has rejected the pre-trial motion submitted by former Deputy Minister of Immigration and Correctional Services, Silmy Karim, regarding the validity of asset seizures conducted by the KPK in an alleged corruption and extortion case involving the management of foreign national residence permits.

“In the exception, the respondent’s exception is rejected in its entirety. Regarding the merits of the case, first, the pre-trial motion submitted by the petitioner is rejected in its entirety; second, the petitioner is ordered to pay court costs amounting to zero. This was decided on Tuesday, 29 September 2026, by the South Jakarta District Court, delivered in an open session for the public,” stated Yuliana during the pre-trial verdict session at the South Jakarta District Court on Tuesday.

The judge presented several considerations before delivering the verdict to reject Silmy Karim’s pre-trial motion.

Among them, the search conducted by the KPK was accompanied by a search warrant and a formal search report, had received approval from the District Court, and had been notified to the KPK Supervisory Board.

“Therefore, the investigators have appropriately fulfilled their obligations as determined by law factually, and approval from the Chief of the Court regarding the search has been issued; thus, the search action must be declared valid,” Yuliana explained.

Regarding the seizure, the judge explained in the considerations that the seizure conducted by the KPK during the investigation stage was carried out in accordance with the guidelines of Article 47 of the KPK Law, which takes precedence over Law No. 20 of 2001, as well as Constitutional Court rulings.

Furthermore, the seizure action during the investigation stage was conducted based on a warrant, documented in an official report, and notified to the KPK Supervisory Board, making the seizure formally valid.

In the judge’s considerations, it was stated that formally, the KPK possesses two valid pieces of evidence, namely witness testimony as well as physical and documentary evidence. Consequently, the investigation and inquiry actions conducted by the KPK were deemed to be based on legal norms.

The pre-trial judge opined that the reasons presented by the petitioner (that the KPK’s investigation against Silmy Karim is invalid) were legally groundless and insufficient to prove any unlawful investigation actions by the respondent as alleged in the pre-trial motion.