South Jakarta District Court Judge: Search of Febrie Adriansyah Was in Accordance with Legal Procedure

The South Jakarta District Court has ruled that the search of former Deputy Attorney General for Special Crimes (Jampidsus) Febrie Adriansyah was carried out in accordance with applicable legal procedure.

In reading the pre-trial verdict at the South Jakarta District Court on Thursday (27/8), sole judge Richard Edwin Basoeki stressed that the investigators’ actions were based on a series of investigations and case exposés conducted well before the search was executed.

“Considering that based on the series as described by the Respondents, the judge found no circumstances indicating that the case in question suddenly emerged on 6 July 2026 without any prior process,” said Richard.

The judge explained that the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) does not stipulate a minimum period between the issuance of an investigation order (sprindik) and the execution of a search. Therefore, the petitioner’s argument that the investigation process was premature due to the short time gap could not be accepted.

“The two-day gap between the investigation order dated 6 July 2026 and the search dated 8 July 2026 cannot be used on its own to prove that the investigation process was conducted prematurely,” the judge asserted.

Furthermore, the judge dismissed Febrie’s argument that no investigation had ever existed because he had never been summoned as a witness or prospective suspect. Referring to Article 1 Paragraph 5 of Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code, an investigation is a series of actions to uncover a criminal event and does not require the examination of a prospective suspect as an absolute condition.

Regarding the difference in administrative numbers on the search warrants (SP.Dah/2934 and SP.Dah/3006), the judge assessed that this did not alter the object of the location searched. The permit from the Chief Judge of the Cibinong District Court concretely still referred to the same location.

“The difference in administrative numbers, without any proven change in the object and scope of the action, is insufficient to conclude that the search was conducted without a permit. The petitioner’s argument is legally unfounded and must be rejected,” said Richard.

Concerning the seizure of personal items such as family photographs and private letters, the judge stated that these items indeed could not be retained as seized evidence if they were not relevant to the case.

However, the judge emphasised that the seizure of these personal items did not automatically invalidate the search and the seizure of other evidence. The seizure of cash, gold, and transaction documents suspected to be linked to the proceeds of corruption and money laundering (TPPU) against Febrie was declared legally valid.