---

Petitioners and attorneys at the virtual hearing of the material judicial review of Law No. 8 of 2010 on the Prevention and Eradication of Criminal Acts of Money Laundering, Wednesday (28/7/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Bayu.

Wednesday, July 28, 2021 | 16:18 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—Auriga Nusantara Foundation and Kaoem Telapak withdrew the petition No. 22/PUU-XIX/2021 in the judicial review of Law No. 8 of 2010 on the Prevention and Eradication of Criminal Acts of Money Laundering (TPPU) at a hearing for the case in the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday, July 28, 2021.

Presiding at the hearing were Constitutional Justices Manahan M. P. Sitompul (panel chair), Arief Hidayat, and Enny Nurbaningsih. This second hearing had been scheduled to revise the petition, but the Petitioners through their legal counsel withdrew the petition.

Legal counsel Feri Amsari said that the Petitioners had sent a letter to the Court dated July 1, 2021 to withdraw the petition. The constitutional justices asked the Petitioners’ representatives, Mardi Minangsari and Abu Meridian, to confirm this directly.

“Because the [Petitioners] and the legal counsel have confirmed this, there is no further question regarding the [withdrawal request] letter dated July 1, 2021 and it has been confirmed at today’s hearing. We will report this to the RPH (justice deliberation meeting) and the next step will be informed by the Registrar’s Office to the Petitioners,” said Justice Manahan at the hearing in the plenary courtroom, which the litigants attended virtually.

Also read: Auriga and Kaoem Telapak Challenge Money Laundering Law 

At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, June 16, 2021, the Petitioners argued that Article 2 paragraph (1) letter z and the Elucidation to Article 74 of the Money Laundering Law violated Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Article 2 paragraph (1) letter z of the a quo law reads, “The result of the criminal act shall be the Assets acquired from the criminal act, as follows: z. other criminal acts subject to imprisonment of 4 (four) years or more.”

Attorney Fadli Ramadhanil argued that the article had resulted in ambiguous objectives of the eradication of money laundering and legal uncertainty because it limited criminal acts only to subject to imprisonment of 4 years or more, or serious crimes. The Petitioners illustrated the provision on copyright crimes such as film piracy through illegal downloads and pirated DVDs.

The Petitioners also alleged that the Elucidation to Article 74 of the Money Laundering Law had resulted in legal uncertainty as the elucidation offers an interpretation that is different from the article. Therefore, the norm has violated Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Therefore, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare Article 2 paragraph (1) letter z of the Money Laundering Law unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as not interpreted as “… other criminal acts subject to imprisonment of 1 (one) year or more.” The Petitioners also requested that the Court declare the Elucidation to Article 74 of the Money Laundering Law unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as not interpreted as “‘Investigator of the predicate crime’ shall be the officials or institutions that under the law are granted the authority to conduct investigation.” 

Writer        : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Fitri Yuliana
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 7/28/2021 10:12 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---