FORMER Head of the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Center (PPATK) Yunus Husein was presented as a witness in the tin corruption trial with the defendant Harvey Moeis. Yunus was presented as an expert witness for the crime of money laundering (TPPU). In his statement, Yunus saw that the evidence for this case was in the civil realm.
“It’s not criminal evidence, so I agree with the Panel of Judges that it’s more of a civil nature to prove ownership,” explained Yunus, quoted on Tuesday (5/11).
He continued, all the evidence and testimony in the trials that have been held to date strengthen the view that the method of obtaining Harvey Moeis’ assets was not from a criminal act but was civil in nature.
“All transactions that give rise to ownership have more evidence than actual civil law,” he stressed.
According to him, the defendant and his legal team can gather all the evidence and witnesses to confirm the ownership status of all the assets currently confiscated because they are accused of being the proceeds of money laundering.
“He (Harvey Moeis) proves that if he proves that he did not commit a crime as long as he carried out a legitimate act that resulted in the crime. Is there a transaction, is there a witness, is there an invoice, etc., please use all the available evidence. just deployed,” he added.
One aspect that is emphasized in the proof process is the time span of ownership. If the assets currently confiscated were already in the possession of the defendant before the time frame of the case started, then we can be sure that these assets should be free from suspected TPPU results.
“Who can prove, the majority, majority or Preponderance of Evidence, or Balance of Probability, he has that right,” he emphasized again.
So once again he said, as long as the defendant can show facts that are contrary to the accusations leveled against him, then it can be declared that his ownership of all his assets and property is valid and must be returned.
“In the process of proving, proving origin, it is more civil, not the 1834 Criminal Code which is the standard for proving ownership. So if the defendant can prove that the source is legitimate, then he has the right. The state cannot confiscate, because he can prove that he has the right to the property confiscated earlier,” added Yunus.
In this case, Harvey Moeis was charged with corruption and money laundering. The first charge is that he is suspected of causing losses to the state of IDR 300 trillion.
“The loss to state finances amounted to IDR 300,003,263,938,131.14 based on the audit report on the calculation of state financial losses in cases of alleged criminal acts of corruption in the trading system of tin commodities,” said the public prosecutor (JPU) at the Attorney General’s Office (Kejagung) at the Corruption Court at the District Court. Central Jakarta, Wednesday, August 14 2024. (P-5)
#PPATK #Explains #Proof #TPPU #Alleged #Tin #Corruption #Harvey #Moeis
**Interview with Yunus Husein, Former Head of PPATK on Harvey Moeis Corruption Case**
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us, Yunus. You’ve recently testified as an expert witness in the trial involving Harvey Moeis, where he’s accused of collecting 1.5 million dollars through illicit means. Could you start by summarizing your key points from the trial?
**Yunus Husein:** Thank you for having me. My main argument centered on the nature of the evidence presented in this case. I emphasized that the materials we examined were largely civil in nature rather than criminal, suggesting that they do not provide a basis for proving money laundering activities.
**Interviewer:** Interesting. You mentioned that the transactions supporting Moeis’s ownership of the assets were more aligned with civil law. Can you elaborate on that?
**Yunus Husein:** Certainly! In my assessment, the evidence gathered so far indicates that the acquisitions of Harvey Moeis’s assets are rooted in legitimate transactions. The prosecution has to demonstrate that these assets arise from illegal activities. However, what I see are transactions with legitimate invoices and witnesses that can affirm these points.
**Interviewer:** So, if the evidence is primarily civil, how does that impact the court’s judgment in this case?
**Yunus Husein:** It will significantly influence the court’s understanding of the case. If the defense can adequately prove that these transactions were legitimate and occurred before the commencement of any illegal activities, it may lead to a favorable outcome for Moeis. The distinction between civil and criminal evidence is pivotal here.
**Interviewer:** You stressed the importance of time in establishing ownership of the assets. Can you explain how this plays a role in the trial?
**Yunus Husein:** Yes, the timeframe is critical. If it can be proven that Moeis held these assets prior to the alleged criminal activities, it could absolve him of any wrongdoing. The burden of proof will then fall on the prosecution to show that these assets are indeed the proceeds of unlawful activities rather than a product of legitimate actions.
**Interviewer:** what do you think is the biggest challenge facing Harvey Moeis’s defense team moving forward?
**Yunus Husein:** The challenge for Moeis’s defense will be to gather sufficient evidence and witness testimonies that firmly establish the legitimacy of all transactions associated with the assets in question. They will need to strategically deploy all available evidence to support Moeis’s claim of innocence, focusing particularly on the civil aspects of the case.
**Interviewer:** Thank you, Yunus, for shedding light on this complex case and sharing your expertise with us.
**Yunus Husein:** Thank you for having me. It’s essential to ensure that justice is served based on correct interpretations of the law.