THE Supreme Court (MA) ordered the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) to return the house in the name of Rafael Alun’s wife, Ernie Meike. The house was seized in an alleged gratification case.
“Indeed, from the start we have said that this should not be allowed (to be confiscated) because the assets have been reported in the tax amnesty,” said Rafael Alun’s lawyer, Junaedi Saibih, in a written statement, Thursday, July 25, 2024.
According to Junaedi, the return is indeed required because it is in accordance with Law Number 11 of 2016 concerning Tax Amnesty. The evidence ordered to be returned includes evidence of TPPU case number 434 in the form of cash worth Rp199,970,000 originating from the disbursement of a time deposit in the name of Ernie Meike Torondek.
Evidence of TPPU case number 436 in the form of cash worth Rp19,892,905.70 originating from a savings account in the name of Ernie Meike Torondok. Evidence of gratification case number 552/TPPU case number 412 in the form of one plot of land including a house building standing on it on Jalan Simprug Golf, Kebayoran Lama, South Jakarta, with an area of 766 square meters in the name of Ernie Meike.
Junaedi said that based on the rules in the Tax Amnesty Law, the return of assets that were confiscated by the KPK should also apply to other remaining assets. According to him, according to Article 20 of the Tax Amnesty Law, data and information sourced from statements and attachments administered by the Ministry of Finance or other parties related to the Tax Amnesty Law cannot be used as a basis for investigation, inquiry, or criminal prosecution.
“It is guaranteed in the law, so if someone asks whether it will be a prosecution material? Then it will be contrary to the principle of criminal punishment. So maybe the judge has seen that (tax amnesty rules). But it will be more agreeable if all assets included in the Tax Amnesty program can be returned because it is the right of the people according to the law, the state should guarantee it, it can be seen for everything we argue,” he explained.
Also read: Today Rafael Alun’s verdict was read out
So, Junaedi said, what the Supreme Court has decided is appropriate. On the other hand, he defended his client regarding the receipt of money from taxpayers through several companies.
“It’s impossible that the entire company is then blamed on Mr. Alun. Because apart from Mr. Alun, there are other shareholders and financial control is not in Mr. Alun’s hands,” he explained.
From this case, he hopes that law enforcers can be more observant in presenting evidence. So that the accusations against Rafael can be proven.
“Learn how to present the right evidence,” he said. (Z-7)
#Rafael #Aluns #Camp #Responds #Positively #Supreme #Court #Decision
