Judge Rejects Bid to Return Family Photos Seized from Sentul Home

A South Jakarta court has rejected a request to return family photos seized from a luxurious home in Sentul, Bogor Regency, belonging to Febrie Adriansyah, a former Junior Attorney General for Special Crimes. The judge presiding over the pre-trial hearing declared the search and seizure of the property valid.

“

However, that situation does not automatically cause the entire search, including money, gold, documents, transaction documents, and other items that rationally have a possible connection with allegations of corruption and money laundering, to become invalid.

During the hearing, the sole judge, Richard Edwin Basoeki, acknowledged that personal documents like family photos generally cannot be retained as evidence unless directly related to an investigation. However, he stated this does not invalidate the entire search, which also yielded money, gold, documents, and transaction records potentially linked to alleged corruption and money laundering.

Significantly, the judge highlighted a discrepancy: Adriansyah claimed in his lawsuit that the Sentul house was his family's residence, but he also stated in his legal filing that he lived elsewhere in Kebayoran Baru, South Jakarta. This led the judge to question why Adriansyah's family photos were found in the Sentul house and who actually occupied it. The judge suggested these questions would be answered as the investigation progresses.

“

However, the question becomes, why were the applicant's family photos found there? Who has actually been occupying and active in that house all this time? And why were the applicant's family photos there?

Furthermore, the judge dismissed Adriansyah's argument that the seizure of private photos and information rendered the entire search illegal. He stated that the discovery of personal items does not automatically invalidate a search warrant or the subsequent actions taken by investigators. The court maintained that individuals have the right to request the return of specific items if they are proven to have no connection to the criminal offense under investigation.

“

Therefore, the applicant's argument that the discovery or seizure of personal items renders the entire search invalid is not legally justified without eliminating the right of interested parties to request the return of specific items if it is proven that the item has no connection to the criminal act.