---

Law expert of Universitas Diponegoro Nyoman Serikat Putra Jaya who summoned by the Constitutional Court and Related Party’s Expert Komariah (Left-Right) deliver testimony at judicial review session on Act of Money Laundering, on Monday (19/10), at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ifa

 

 

 

Optional evidentiary of predicate offense in money laundering cases is based on the concept of follow the money, in order to prevent trace loss (kehilangan jejak), the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre’s (Pusat Pelaporan dan Analisis Transaksi Keuangan –PPATK) Expert Komariah delivers testimony at judicial review session on Act of Money Laundering (Undang-Undang Tindak Pidana Pencucian Uang –UU TPPU), on Monday (19/10) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building 

“Handling money laundering cases shall be based on the principle of follow the money, rather than follow the person. It because searching on money laundering result in recent sophisticated era shall be done immediately. Thus, legislators particularly stated that predicate offense is not necessarily to be proved first,” said her.

Komariah argues the method of follow the person will have negative impact if defendants passed away. Her opinion is based on Constitutional Court Verdict Number 77/PUU-XII/2014 which stated that money laundering case will be annulled and money laundering receivers cannot be prosecuted if money laundering defendants passed away. She considers such condition is injustice; receivers who gain benefit from money laundering cannot be preceded just because the predicate offense is yet proven.

“It is injustice when a person who gain benefit from money laundering cannot be preceded just because the predicate offense is yet proven. Indonesian people will be angry with such condition,” said her.

Meanwhile, law expert of Universitas Diponegoro Nyoman Serikat Putra Jaya as expert summoned by the Constitutional Court, explains that optional evidentiary of predicate offense aims at optimal result in money laundering eradication. According to him, it is in accordance with Article 3 (1) United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime Year 2000. “Article 3 (1) United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime Year 2000 encourages member countries to take preventive measures by their respective national law and Act of Money Laundering has jurisdiction on predicate offense which has been adjusted,” said him.

As known, Panca Lomba Makmur Ltd. Commissioner R.J. Soehandoyo files petition on Act a quo which registered in Case Number 90/PUU-XIII/2015. He is named as suspect for allegation of money laundering case. He considers 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).

In the petition, he explains that Panca Logam Makmur Ltd. Director and Finance Manager commit embezzlement (penggelapan) and both have been sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years.

In dealing with such problem, 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/Prasetyo Adi N)

 

---