Judicial review on money laundering crime act (UU TPPU) which pleaded by life imprisonment convict, Akil Mochtar was conducted on Monday (9/22) at MK Plenary Room. Government and the House representatives delivered their testimonies, as both statements affirmed each others’ testimonies.

Harry Witjaksono, DPR RI commission III member delivered his testimony, saying that TPPU is not just threatening economic and financial system, but also harms the nation’s way of living. Given that, its psychological effect emits violated actions of cloaking dire properties. Therefore, such crime may lead to even more complex fraud.   

“Fraud crime is accelerating to tackle jurisdiction limit and in various way harnessing any institution beyond financial systems,” Harry said.

 DPR also declined Applicant argument which says phrase “deservedly fall under suspicion” in Article 2 verse (2), Article 3, Article 4, Article 5 verse (1) is difficult to measure and opposing citizen’s rights to gain legal certainty.

DPR also refused Applicant’s suggestion which says that Article 69 UU TPPU may drop a sentence over suspects without any cleared and legal evidence, thus it is considered repelling prejudice principle. DPR sees that fraud investigation is not obliged to be proven first as long as the investigation do not harm the Constitution. The investigation is always destining original crime that preceded fraud suspect’s motive.  

“DPR argues that original crime and money laundering to cloak up violation is two separated complaints. If both crimes committed by same person, which is possible, the actions called concursuf realis. Therefore Article 69 UU TPPU do not oppose prejudice principle as determined in Article 1 verse (3) 1945 Constitution,” Harry said

Separated from Others

In line with DPR’s statement, Mualimin Abdi, government’s representative, said that money laundering affects economic and financial system, even more disrupts global economic system, respectively. Invalid properties from money laundering practices infused with people’s properties. Within the ruling, government convinced that any illegal properties would be easier to foreclose.

The government ensured that Article 69 UU TPPU determines money laundering action as a seprated crime, therefore proving original crime at the first place is not obliged. It is not opposing 1945 Constitution.(Yusti Nurul Agustin/kun)