Lawyers Challenge Attorney General's Office to Reveal Owner of Seized Gold

The legal team representing a former Deputy Attorney General for Special Crimes is challenging the Attorney General's Office to disclose the owner of a significant cache of gold and foreign currency. The assets, totaling 74 kilograms of gold and unspecified foreign currency, were reportedly discovered during a search related to a money laundering investigation involving their client, Febrie Adriansyah.

Febri Diansyah, a lawyer for Adriansyah, stated that proving the ownership and the source of these assets is paramount. "That is what the investigators must prove. The main point is: it must be proven whose gold and foreign currency it is," Diansyah asserted after visiting his client at the KPK detention center. He emphasized that the origin of the assets needs to be investigated to determine if they stem from legitimate or illicit sources.

“

That is what the investigators must prove. The main point is: it must be proven whose gold and foreign currency it is.

If the assets are found to be from an illegal source, Diansyah argued, further classification would be necessary to identify the specific type of crime. He suggested that if the predicate crime is not clearly established, then charging someone with money laundering and detaining them would be premature. This stance highlights a potential legal challenge regarding the basis of the money laundering charges against Adriansyah.

Furthermore, Adriansyah's defense team has raised concerns about alleged procedural irregularities in the detention order issued by the Attorney General's Office. While not immediately filing for a pretrial motion, they are continuing to scrutinize the documents and facts obtained. Adriansyah was detained by the Attorney General's Office on July 24th and is currently held at the KPK detention center for an initial 20-day period as the investigation into alleged money laundering continues.

“

If from an illicit source, it must be further categorized by the type of crime. If it's corruption, it goes to the Tipikor Court, but if it's another crime, it cannot go to the Tipikor Court. In this context, we present our criticism and differing opinions. If the predicate crime is not clear, then the determination of a money laundering suspect is a hasty one, especially the detention.