Attorney General's Office Reveals Reason for Febrie's Detention: Testimony Contradicted Facts

The Indonesian Attorney General's Office (Kejagung) has detailed its rationale for detaining Febrie Adriansyah, the former Deputy Attorney General for Special Crimes, in connection with a money laundering investigation. The office stated that Febrie's testimony during his examination as a suspect did not align with the facts established by the investigation team.

“

There is information or a statement provided by the applicant during the examination that is not in accordance with the facts that have been found and confirmed by the respondent in the investigation process.

This explanation was presented by the legal team representing Kejagung during a pre-trial hearing at the South Jakarta District Court. They cited Article 100 of the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), specifically subsection 5 letter b, which allows for the detention of suspects who provide information inconsistent with investigative findings. "The measure of the fulfillment of these circumstances is the existence of objective grounds obtained by investigators that the information or statement provided by the suspect during the examination is not in accordance with the facts that have been revealed in the investigation," the legal team stated.

Kejagung further argued that Febrie's detention also met the objective requirements outlined in Article 100, subsection 1 of the KUHAP. This is because the alleged crime, a violation of the Money Laundering Law with a potential sentence of up to 20 years, carries a penalty that meets the minimum threshold for detention. The office maintained that all legal prerequisites for issuing the detention warrant were satisfied, rendering the warrant valid and legally binding.

“

Thus, the measure of the fulfillment of these circumstances is the existence of objective grounds obtained by investigators that the information or statement provided by the suspect during the examination is not in accordance with the facts that have been revealed in the investigation.

Previously, Febrie had petitioned the court to invalidate his detention and the associated arrest warrant, issued on July 24, 2026. He argued that the warrant lacked legal basis. However, Kejagung's response asserts the completeness of the legal grounds for the detention, effectively challenging Febrie's pre-trial motion.

“

Has clear authority and legal grounds, and there are no legal reasons to declare the detention order null, invalid, or without binding legal force.