Witness Reveals Initial Involvement of TNI in Jakarta Bank Branch Manager Case

Jakarta (ANTARA) - A witness has revealed the initial involvement of TNI Kopassus members in the alleged kidnapping and murder case of a bank branch manager in Jakarta, initialled MIP (37). Witness 5 in the trial, Yohanes Joko Pamuntas, recounted that it began when Dwi Hartono (Witness 3) asked his friend to find a thug figure. “He asked (Dwi) if I knew any thugs, maybe first because I (work) in parking, second maybe back in college, if I knew any thugs, turns out his girlfriend was harassed during college, I thought something similar,” said Joko during the witness examination hearing at the Military Court II-08 in Cakung, East Jakarta, on Monday. Joko, who is also a defendant in the civilian cluster of the same case, is a friend of Dwi Hartono. At that time, Joko admitted he did not yet know the purpose of the request for the thug. However, he still agreed to his friend’s request. Then, Joko mentioned that he thought of Serka MN (Defendant 1), who is his neighbour where he lives. “Then I just thought of Defendant 1 (MN) because I know him, neighbour,” said Joko. According to Joko, Dwi Hartono then asked him to introduce him to Serka MN. Following that instruction, Joko immediately conveyed the message to MN. “Uncle, your friend seems to have a problem, this is my boss. Then he (replied), oh that’s your friend, how do you ask?,” said Joko imitating his conversation with MN. Subsequently, Joko introduced MN to Dwi Hartono at a cafe in the Kota Wisata Cibubur area. From there, Dwi conveyed the tasks to MN. “Meet the person (MIP), then take him to the team, there’s a pickup team or take him where, they decide,” said Joko. It was from here that the involvement of two other Kopassus members, Kopda FH (Defendant 2) and Serka FY (Defendant 3), began. Previously, three Indonesian Army (AD) soldiers were charged with premeditated murder in the alleged kidnapping and murder case of a bank branch manager (kacab) in Jakarta initialled MIP (37). The main charge filed is Article 340 of the Criminal Code on premeditated murder. In this construction, the defendants are alleged to have planned the action beforehand that resulted in the loss of the victim’s life. The prosecutor also prepared alternative charges as a precaution, namely the subsidiary Article 338 of the Criminal Code on murder subsidiary to Article 351 paragraph 3 regarding assault causing death. In addition, the prosecutor also submitted an alternative charge in the form of Article 333 paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code regarding deprivation of liberty causing death. The defendants were also charged cumulatively with Article 181 of the Criminal Code, which regulates the act of concealing a body. This article indicates an alleged attempt to eliminate traces or obscure facts after the victim’s death incident.