Attorney General's Office Refutes Claims on Suspect Designations, Seeks Rejection of Pretrial Motion

Indonesia's Attorney General's Office (Kejagung) has formally denied allegations made by former Deputy Attorney General for Specific Crimes, Febrie Adriansyah, concerning the duplication of suspect designations. In response to Febrie's pretrial motion, Kejagung's legal team argued that the concept of 'duplication' does not constitute a legal principle that invalidates a suspect's status.

“

Criminal law recognizes the principle of Nebis In Idem, not a prohibition against what the Petitioner unilaterally calls duplication of suspect designation.

Kejagung clarified that Indonesian criminal law recognizes the principle of 'ne bis in idem,' which prohibits prosecuting an individual twice for the same offense after a final court judgment. This principle, outlined in Article 134 of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code, applies only after a case has reached a legally binding verdict. Kejagung emphasized that Febrie's claim of duplication pertains to having more than one suspect designation letter, not a second prosecution for the same case post-verdict.

The legal team further contested Febrie's assertion that no predicate criminal act of corruption existed in the money laundering case. Kejagung stated that Febrie's claim is erroneous and contradicts existing legal provisions. The suspect designation explicitly identifies corruption as the predicate criminal act, and the investigation into money laundering does not require prior proof of the predicate offense. The office expressed surprise that Febrie's lawsuit acknowledged the suspect designation clearly included allegations of money laundering.

“

The prohibition applies only to a second prosecution for the same case after a court decision has obtained permanent legal force.

Based on these arguments, Kejagung has requested the court to disregard Febrie's claims of duplicate suspect designations and reject his pretrial motion entirely. The office maintains that Febrie's arguments lack a foundation in legal norms that prohibit multiple suspect designations and do not meet the criteria for the 'ne bis in idem' principle.

“

The predicate criminal act of corruption is explicitly stated, and the investigation of money laundering does not have to wait for proof of the predicate criminal act first.