---

Artha Dewi Nurhajah, attorney of the Petitioner, delivering the revision points of the petition for judicial review of Law on Money Laundering (TPPU) on Monday (31/7) in the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas/Ifa.

A further hearing for the judicial review of Law Number 8 Year 2010 on the Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering of case Number 35/PUU-XV/2017 was held by the Constitutional Court on Monday (31/7). The agenda of the session is petition revision. The Petitioner was represented by Artha Dewi Nurhajah as the attorney.

The Petitioner revised and clarified the main points of his petition, including the definition money laundering. "Money laundering offense is a follow-up of a crime. Therefore, it cannot stand alone and must be preceded by a predicate offense," said Artha to the panel of judges led by Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna.

Artha said that the provision of the Law on Money Laundering does not require proof of predicated offense against suspects in money laundering offense. Under these circumstances, the Petitioner argued for constitutional losses because, based on the trial process, the Petitioners was proven not having committed a drug-related crime but was charged for money laundering.

"Using that argument, the Petitioner requested that the Constitutional Court provide a constitutional interpretation of the minimum amount of financial transactions that could be suspected as a money laundering offense excluding transactions for daily living costs," explained Artha.

The Petitioner also improved the format and structure of the application according to the judges’ recommendations at the preliminary hearing. In addition, the Petitioner reduced the articles to review to only Article 1 number 5 and Article 69 of the Money Laundering Law. "Then for the reference, previously Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 26 paragraph (1) letter I, and Article 28I paragraph (1) were to review. Now it is only Article 28G paragraph (1) and Article 28I paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution," he added.

Previously, according to the Petitioner, Article 1 number 5 of the Money Laundering Law had determined the types of transactions that could be categorized as suspicious transactions. However, the minimum nominal value for a transaction to be categorized as a suspicious had not been regulated in that article.

The Petitioner explained that the Money Laundering Law had been issued to arrest perpetrators of the crime, especially big-time criminals. Thus, there must be a certain nominal limit of a predicated offense, which then later disguised by the perpetrator of the predicated offense, in order to be categorized as a money laundering offense.

According to the Petitioner, it is reasonable to confirm a limit in the form of a minimum transaction nominal value of Rp500,000,000 for a transaction to be categorized as "suspicious" because "suspicious transactions" will serve as "preliminary evidence" on the alleged money laundering offense.

"According to Article 69 of Law No. 8/2010, in order to be able to conduct investigation, prosecution, and examination in the trial of money laundering offense, conviction for the predicated offense is not mandatory," said Artha. In this case, it should be understood that what is meant by "conviction not mandatory" is that a verdict that has a legal force (in kracht) is not mandatory.

(Nano Tresna Arfana/lul/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---