Three defendants in corruption obstruction case face 8–10 years' imprisonment demands
Jakarta (ANTARA) - Three defendants in a case of alleged obstruction of law enforcement across three corruption cases were demanded to serve prison sentences ranging from 8 to 10 years during the reading of prosecution demands at the Corruption Court of the Central Jakarta District Court on Wednesday (18/2) evening.
The three defendants are former TV crew member Tian Bahtiar and activist or buzzer team leader Adhiya Muzakki, who each face demands of 8 years' imprisonment, whilst lawyer Junaedi Saibih faces a demand of 10 years' imprisonment.
"We demand that the panel of judges declare the defendants proven legally and convincingly guilty of committing the criminal offence of joint obstruction," said Public Prosecutor Syamsul Bahri Siregar from the Attorney General's Office.
Beyond prison sentences, the three defendants also face demands for fines of Rp600 million each, with the provision that should the fines go unpaid, they would be substituted with 150 days' imprisonment.
For their actions, prosecutors are confident the three defendants violated Article 21 of Law Number 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption in conjunction with its amendment under Law Number 20 of 2001, read together with Article 20(c) of the National Criminal Code.
In this case, the three were charged with obstructing law enforcement in three corruption cases, namely the management of tin commodities, crude palm oil (CPO) exports, and sugar importation.
The three defendants allegedly created programmes and content aimed at shaping negative public opinion regarding the handling of these three cases.
In the tin case, the three defendants were said to have carried out obstruction by devising a defence scheme that involved creating negative narratives and opinions using social media buzzers to influence the case handling process.
In the CPO case, the three were charged with obstruction through non-juridical schemes outside of court proceedings aimed at forming negative opinions as though the investigators' handling of the case was improper.
In the sugar case, the three defendants allegedly carried out obstruction by creating content and negative opinions about the Attorney General's Office investigators' handling of that case.
The three defendants are former TV crew member Tian Bahtiar and activist or buzzer team leader Adhiya Muzakki, who each face demands of 8 years' imprisonment, whilst lawyer Junaedi Saibih faces a demand of 10 years' imprisonment.
"We demand that the panel of judges declare the defendants proven legally and convincingly guilty of committing the criminal offence of joint obstruction," said Public Prosecutor Syamsul Bahri Siregar from the Attorney General's Office.
Beyond prison sentences, the three defendants also face demands for fines of Rp600 million each, with the provision that should the fines go unpaid, they would be substituted with 150 days' imprisonment.
For their actions, prosecutors are confident the three defendants violated Article 21 of Law Number 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption in conjunction with its amendment under Law Number 20 of 2001, read together with Article 20(c) of the National Criminal Code.
In this case, the three were charged with obstructing law enforcement in three corruption cases, namely the management of tin commodities, crude palm oil (CPO) exports, and sugar importation.
The three defendants allegedly created programmes and content aimed at shaping negative public opinion regarding the handling of these three cases.
In the tin case, the three defendants were said to have carried out obstruction by devising a defence scheme that involved creating negative narratives and opinions using social media buzzers to influence the case handling process.
In the CPO case, the three were charged with obstruction through non-juridical schemes outside of court proceedings aimed at forming negative opinions as though the investigators' handling of the case was improper.
In the sugar case, the three defendants allegedly carried out obstruction by creating content and negative opinions about the Attorney General's Office investigators' handling of that case.