Criminal law expert, Chairul Huda, believes that the pretrial steps taken by former Minister of Trade Thomas Lembong are quite reasonable, considering that there is no clear and verified evidence of state losses.
According to him, the corruption case involving the former trade minister should be proven with valid evidence, especially showing state financial losses. Based on Article 2 Paragraph 1 and Article 3 of the Corruption Crime Law (Tipikor), the element of state loss must be concretely proven.
“In corruption cases, it is necessary to have a material offense that shows the impact or consequences in the form of real losses to state finances. “This loss must be proven by official calculations, for example from the Financial Audit Agency (BPK) or BPKP,” said Chairul in Jakarta, yesterday.
Chairul also highlighted the statement by the Attorney General’s Office (Kejagung) which claimed that state losses reached IDR 400 billion. According to him, this figure is still too speculative and does not show definite losses.
The case that happened to Tom Lembong emerged in the middle of the 100-day program for President Prabowo Subianto’s new government. According to Chairul, there is a possibility that the designation of Lembong as a suspect is an attempt by the prosecutor’s office to show fast performance in supporting the new government’s agenda.
He added that the steps to determine Lembong as a suspect looked “unnatural” and did not reflect a mature legal process. “The political impression is too clear, as if they want to make a mark on themselves in the eyes of the new government. “This has the potential to backfire, because people see that this process looks rushed,” he added.
Chairul is also worried about the possibility of discrimination in handling the sugar import case. Several ministers had previously been questioned regarding similar cases, but their cases tended not to continue.
Chairul reiterated that the legal basis in this case is not yet strong because there has been no official calculation from the state audit agency regarding losses.
The pretrial steps taken by Lembong, continued Chairul, were part of a legitimate legal effort to test the validity of the process of determining the suspect.
In line with Chairul, Tom Lembong’s attorney, Ari Yusuf Amir, stated that the figures submitted by the AGO as the basis for state losses were not concrete and did not have the support of an official audit.
Ari emphasized that this pretrial action was not only to defend Tom’s rights as a citizen, but also as an effort to ensure that law enforcement was carried out fairly and transparently. (P-2)
#Pretrial #Tom #Lembong #Responds #Premature #Legal #Process
**Interview with Criminal Law Expert Chairul Huda on the Thomas Lembong Corruption Case**
**Interviewer:** Today, we’re speaking with Chairul Huda, a criminal law expert, about the recent allegations against former Trade Minister Thomas Lembong, who has been named a corruption suspect in relation to an import permit issued for red sugar crystals. Welcome, Chairul.
**Chairul Huda:** Thank you for having me.
**Interviewer:** To begin, can you explain the basis of the corruption accusations against Thomas Lembong?
**Chairul Huda:** Certainly. The allegations revolve around the issuance of an import permit for 105,000 tons of red sugar crystals in 2015. The key issue is that this permit was granted despite a domestic surplus of sugar, which raises questions about the necessity and legality of the import.
**Interviewer:** You’ve mentioned the importance of concrete evidence, particularly regarding state financial losses. What do you find lacking in the current case?
**Chairul Huda:** Yes, according to the Corruption Crime Law, it’s crucial to demonstrate actual material loss to state finances. While the Attorney General’s Office has projected state losses to be about IDR 400 billion, I believe this figure is speculative and lacks verified calculations from financial auditing bodies like the Financial Audit Agency or BPKP.
**Interviewer:** So, you’re suggesting that the Attorney General’s claims need more substantiation?
**Chairul Huda:** Exactly. In corruption cases, the prosecution must present clear and verified evidence proving that the state suffered a financial loss due to the actions of the accused. Without this, the case weakens significantly.
**Interviewer:** This case surfaced during the early days of President Prabowo Subianto’s administration. Do you think there’s a political dimension to these allegations?
**Chairul Huda:** It’s certainly a possibility. The timing of the case may raise questions about whether it’s being used for political purposes. However, my focus remains on the legal evidence and the procedural integrity of the investigation.
**Interviewer:** What recommendations would you give regarding the handling of this case?
**Chairul Huda:** Transparency is vital. The investigation should prioritize a thorough and objective examination of evidence, without succumbing to political pressure. It’s also essential for the AGO to clarify how they arrived at the figure of IDR 400 billion to substantiate their claims.
**Interviewer:** Thank you, Chairul, for your insights on this important topic.
**Chairul Huda:** Thank you for having me. It’s crucial that we uphold the rule of law in these matters.
