---

PPATK’s Chief, Muhamad Yusuf as Related Party delivers testimony at judicial review session on Act of Money Laundering, on Monday (5/10) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

 

The Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (Pusat Pelaporan dan Analisis Transaksi Keuangan –PPATK) reject the abolition of provision regarding optional evidentiary of predicate offense (pidana asal) in money laundering investigation as stipulated in Article 69 Act Number 2010 of Money Laundering (Undang-Undang Tindak Pidana Pencucian Uang –UU TPPU). PPATK’s Chief, Muhamad Yusuf asserts the abolition makes courts cannot process money laundering case. He presents as Related Party at judicial review session on Act of Money Laundering, on Monday (5/10) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. As known, Panca Lomba Makmur Ltd. Commissioner, R.J. Soehandoyo, files the petition which registered in Case Number 90/PUU-XIII/2015.

According to Yusuf, Article 69 Act a quo is absolute. The abolition of Case Number 69 Act a quo will make law enforcement process in money laundering case depends on predicate offense evidentiary. Money laundering case will be unprocessed in courts if its underlying predicate offense is not proven.

“It will be very beneficial to predicate offense offender. The result of offender’s offense cannot be processed in courts if the offense hidden or disguised. Account blocking, seizure, and confiscation of cannot be done under reason unproven predicate offense,” said him in front of Justice Panel led by Deputy Chief Anwar Usman.

Yusuf further says, the abolition of Article 69 Act a quo as demanded by the Applicant will adversely impact new paradigm of follow the money in money laundering enforcement unoptimal. As known, money laundering disclosure is often beginning from tracing on suspected property sourced from crime. The property will be blocked if the element of money laundering fulfilled, including the allegation of property which sourced from predicate offense.

"Thus, if in the process of investigation, prosecution and examination before the court against money laundering case shall be first proved its predicate offense, then the assets suspected or known from the results of the crime will be quickly diverted, concealed, or disguised by the offender before law enforcers able to carry out its underlying predicate offense enforcement," he explained.

Therefore, Article 69 Act a quo is needed to prevent such condition. Law enforcers shall trace properties which allegedly sourced from crime, in order to implement Article 69 Act a quo.

Responding the testimony, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna asks the possibility of criminalization on social foundation that received money allegedly from the result of money laundering. “Is the donation that allegedly from crime considered contains the element of mens rea? Because it certainly could be criminalized,” asked him.

Answering Justice’s question, Yusuf explains that the recipient of money laundering case is not always able to be criminalized. Criminalization is only able to be imposed if the recipient knows the money donated to him is the result of money laundering case, as stipulated in Article 5 (1) Act a quo. “The recipient able to be criminalized if he knows the money sourced from money laundering,” said him.

Soehandoyo is a suspect in money laundering case who detrimental by the provision on Article 69 Act a quo. The Article a quo stated “In order to conduct investigation, prosecution, and examination before the court regarding money laundering case, it is not necessary to prove predicate offense first” (“Untuk dapat dilakukan penyidikan, penuntutan, dan pemeriksaan di sidang pengadilan terhadap tindak pidana Pencucian Uang tidak wajib dibuktikan terlebih dahulu tindak pidana asalnya”).

He argues Article a quo is logically flawed and contrary to the 1945 Constitution (Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 –UUD 1945). The Applicant is named as suspect for allegation of money laundering case. Panca Logam Makmur Ltd. Director and Finance Manager commit embezzlement (penggelapan) in his company. Both have been sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years. The Applicant as commissioner invites shareholders to conduct shareholders general meeting (Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham –RUPS) for selecting new board member. However, the meeting cannot be done because one of the majority shareholders was absent.

Unbeknownst to the Applicant, other shareholders conducted the meeting and determined the new company board.

To this incident, the Applicant –as commissioner and provisional board— transfers company fund which has embezzled by previous director and finance manager to company account. He is named as suspect due to the transfer. (Lulu Anjarsari/IR/Prasetyo Adi N)

---