Three defendants in CPO bribery and money laundering case face 9 to 17 years' imprisonment
Three defendants in a case involving alleged bribery to influence an acquittal verdict in a crude palm oil (CPO) export corruption case, along with money laundering charges dating to 2025, face prison sentences of between 9 and 17 years.
The three defendants are lawyer Junaedi Saibih, for whom prosecutors demanded 9 years' imprisonment; Head of Social Security Legal at Wilmar Group Muhammad Syafei, facing a demand of 15 years; and lawyer Ariyanto, facing a demand of 17 years.
"We demand that the defendants be found legally and convincingly guilty of committing corruption offences jointly by bribing judges, as well as money laundering committed jointly," said public prosecutor Syamsul Bahri Siregar from the Attorney General's Office during the sentencing hearing at the Corruption Court at the Central Jakarta District Court on Wednesday evening (18 February).
In addition to prison sentences, the three defendants also face fines of Rp600 million each, with the provision that unpaid fines be substituted with 150 days' imprisonment.
Syafei and Ariyanto specifically were also demanded to pay restitution of Rp9.33 billion (substituted by 5 years' imprisonment) and Rp21.6 billion (substituted by 8 years' imprisonment) respectively.
For Junaedi and Ariyanto, prosecutors asked the panel of judges to order bar associations to dismiss both from the legal profession.
Additionally, prosecutors demanded that Junaedi be dishonourably discharged from his position as a lecturer at the University of Indonesia.
For his actions, Junaedi was found guilty of violating Article 6 paragraph (1) letter a in conjunction with Article 18 of Law Number 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption, as amended by Law Number 20 of 2001, in conjunction with Article 20 letter c of the National Criminal Code.
Prosecutors found Syafei in violation of Article 6 paragraph (1) letter a in conjunction with Article 18 of the Anti-Corruption Law, in conjunction with Article 20 letter c and Article 607 paragraph (1) letter a of the National Criminal Code.
Meanwhile, Ariyanto was found guilty of violating Article 6 paragraph (1) letter a in conjunction with Article 18 of the Anti-Corruption Law, in conjunction with Article 20 letter a and Article 607 paragraph (1) letter a of the National Criminal Code.
Before issuing their demands, prosecutors considered several aggravating factors, namely that the three defendants failed to support the government's programme to achieve clean governance free from corruption, collusion and nepotism.
The actions of all three, which harmed the public and particularly the integrity of the judicial institution, were also considered aggravating circumstances.
For Junaedi and Ariyanto specifically, an additional aggravating factor was that their actions had degraded the dignity of the legal profession.
Syafei and Ariyanto were assessed by prosecutors to have enjoyed the proceeds of the bribery offence as bribe-givers.
A further aggravating factor specific to Ariyanto was that he gave evasive testimony during trial proceedings, whilst Syafei was found to have undermined the ethical standards of the judicial profession, which requires honesty, fairness, impartiality and the upholding of dignity.
On the other hand, mitigating factors were noted for Junaedi and Syafei, namely that neither had previously been convicted, and Syafei in particular conducted himself courteously during proceedings.
In this case, Ariyanto and Junaedi were charged with jointly providing bribes totalling Rp40 billion together with lawyer Marcella Santoso.
Meanwhile, the money laundering was allegedly committed by Marcella jointly with Ariyanto and Syafei, amounting to Rp52.5 billion.
The bribes were directed at judges handling the CPO corruption case, whilst the money laundering was carried out by using company names for asset ownership and mingling corruption proceeds with legitimate income.
The money laundering comprised US dollar amounts equivalent to Rp28 billion controlled by Marcella, Ariyanto and Syafei, as well as legal fees totalling Rp24.5 billion.
For Syafei specifically, the money laundering amount was stated as Rp28 billion, controlled jointly with Marcella and Ariyanto, plus operational funds of Rp411.69 million.
Ariyanto was charged under Article 6 paragraph (1) letter a, or Article 5 paragraph (1) letter a, or Article 13 in conjunction with Article 18 of the Anti-Corruption Law, in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph (1) point 1 of the Criminal Code, and Article 3, 4 or 5 of Law Number 8 of 2010 on the Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering.
Junaedi was alleged to have violated Article 6 paragraph (1) letter a, or Article 5 paragraph (1) letter a, or Article 13 in conjunction with Article 18 of the Anti-Corruption Law, in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph (1) point 1 of the Criminal Code.
Syafei was charged under Article 6 paragraph (1) letter a, or Article 5 paragraph (1) letter a, or Article 13 in conjunction with Article 18 of the Anti-Corruption Law, in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph (1) point 1 and Article 56 of the Criminal Code, and Article 3, 4 or 5 of the Law on the Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering.
The three defendants are lawyer Junaedi Saibih, for whom prosecutors demanded 9 years' imprisonment; Head of Social Security Legal at Wilmar Group Muhammad Syafei, facing a demand of 15 years; and lawyer Ariyanto, facing a demand of 17 years.
"We demand that the defendants be found legally and convincingly guilty of committing corruption offences jointly by bribing judges, as well as money laundering committed jointly," said public prosecutor Syamsul Bahri Siregar from the Attorney General's Office during the sentencing hearing at the Corruption Court at the Central Jakarta District Court on Wednesday evening (18 February).
In addition to prison sentences, the three defendants also face fines of Rp600 million each, with the provision that unpaid fines be substituted with 150 days' imprisonment.
Syafei and Ariyanto specifically were also demanded to pay restitution of Rp9.33 billion (substituted by 5 years' imprisonment) and Rp21.6 billion (substituted by 8 years' imprisonment) respectively.
For Junaedi and Ariyanto, prosecutors asked the panel of judges to order bar associations to dismiss both from the legal profession.
Additionally, prosecutors demanded that Junaedi be dishonourably discharged from his position as a lecturer at the University of Indonesia.
For his actions, Junaedi was found guilty of violating Article 6 paragraph (1) letter a in conjunction with Article 18 of Law Number 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption, as amended by Law Number 20 of 2001, in conjunction with Article 20 letter c of the National Criminal Code.
Prosecutors found Syafei in violation of Article 6 paragraph (1) letter a in conjunction with Article 18 of the Anti-Corruption Law, in conjunction with Article 20 letter c and Article 607 paragraph (1) letter a of the National Criminal Code.
Meanwhile, Ariyanto was found guilty of violating Article 6 paragraph (1) letter a in conjunction with Article 18 of the Anti-Corruption Law, in conjunction with Article 20 letter a and Article 607 paragraph (1) letter a of the National Criminal Code.
Before issuing their demands, prosecutors considered several aggravating factors, namely that the three defendants failed to support the government's programme to achieve clean governance free from corruption, collusion and nepotism.
The actions of all three, which harmed the public and particularly the integrity of the judicial institution, were also considered aggravating circumstances.
For Junaedi and Ariyanto specifically, an additional aggravating factor was that their actions had degraded the dignity of the legal profession.
Syafei and Ariyanto were assessed by prosecutors to have enjoyed the proceeds of the bribery offence as bribe-givers.
A further aggravating factor specific to Ariyanto was that he gave evasive testimony during trial proceedings, whilst Syafei was found to have undermined the ethical standards of the judicial profession, which requires honesty, fairness, impartiality and the upholding of dignity.
On the other hand, mitigating factors were noted for Junaedi and Syafei, namely that neither had previously been convicted, and Syafei in particular conducted himself courteously during proceedings.
In this case, Ariyanto and Junaedi were charged with jointly providing bribes totalling Rp40 billion together with lawyer Marcella Santoso.
Meanwhile, the money laundering was allegedly committed by Marcella jointly with Ariyanto and Syafei, amounting to Rp52.5 billion.
The bribes were directed at judges handling the CPO corruption case, whilst the money laundering was carried out by using company names for asset ownership and mingling corruption proceeds with legitimate income.
The money laundering comprised US dollar amounts equivalent to Rp28 billion controlled by Marcella, Ariyanto and Syafei, as well as legal fees totalling Rp24.5 billion.
For Syafei specifically, the money laundering amount was stated as Rp28 billion, controlled jointly with Marcella and Ariyanto, plus operational funds of Rp411.69 million.
Ariyanto was charged under Article 6 paragraph (1) letter a, or Article 5 paragraph (1) letter a, or Article 13 in conjunction with Article 18 of the Anti-Corruption Law, in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph (1) point 1 of the Criminal Code, and Article 3, 4 or 5 of Law Number 8 of 2010 on the Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering.
Junaedi was alleged to have violated Article 6 paragraph (1) letter a, or Article 5 paragraph (1) letter a, or Article 13 in conjunction with Article 18 of the Anti-Corruption Law, in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph (1) point 1 of the Criminal Code.
Syafei was charged under Article 6 paragraph (1) letter a, or Article 5 paragraph (1) letter a, or Article 13 in conjunction with Article 18 of the Anti-Corruption Law, in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph (1) point 1 and Article 56 of the Criminal Code, and Article 3, 4 or 5 of the Law on the Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering.