Suara Denpasar – The response of the Public Prosecutor (JPU) to the objection of the defendant, former Chancellor of Udayana University (Unud) Pof. Dr. Ir. I Nyoman Gde Antara, M.Eng. IPU is considered not fundamental.
Because everything has been explained clearly in the indictment presented by the prosecutor before the trial.
Prosecutor Dr. Dino Kriesmiardi, SH, MH emphasized that this was related to the objections of the defendant and his team of legal advisors regarding the defendant’s capacity which was not fully explained in the Public Prosecutor’s indictment.
Either in the first primary claim, the first subsidiary claim, or the second claim, or the third claim.
“This is a very far-fetched objection and has no basis at all. In each of the public prosecutor’s indictments, the qualifications of the defendant as the legal subject of the article being charged are very clearly explained,” he explained at the hearing at the Denpasar District Court Corruption Court, Thursday 9 November 2023.
However, to prove whether the defendant has fulfilled the qualifications for the legal subject will be proven in the main case examination.
Likewise, exceptions state that it is inaccurate, unclear and incomplete in the description of actions to enrich oneself, another person or a corporation or benefit oneself, another person or a corporation.
“It is also a reason for objection that is very baseless. The reason put forward shows that the defendant or the defendant’s team of legal advisors were not serious in reading and understanding the indictment prepared by the Public Prosecutor which very clearly outlined the elements of enriching or benefiting themselves, people. another person or a corporation,” he explained.
According to the prosecutor, the defendant’s objection was not included in the scope of material that could be submitted as an objection (exception) as regulated in Article 156 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
“Therefore, on this occasion we do not need to respond and it should be declared rejected,” stressed the prosecutor before the judge.
Likewise, the defendant’s objection regarding aquo was prepared carelessly, unclearly, and was incomplete or vague (obscuur libel) regarding the description of the criminal act of which the defendant was charged.
Where, there is no careful, clear and complete description regarding the state losses resulting from SPI levies (institutional development contributions) that the defendant is accused of, which is also a very baseless reason.
The prosecutor said, in the description of the First Primair and First Subsidiary charges, the Public Prosecutor had included the results of calculating state losses as per the Public Accountant’s Report on the Investigative Examination of Udayana University, Bali Province for 2018 to 2022 No. AUP-002/MTD/MLG/IX/2023 made by the Made Sudarma, Thomas & Dewi Public Accounting Firm, the truth of which will be proven in the main case examination.
And, regarding the description of the criminal act for which the Defendant was charged because there were no results of an audit of state losses from the Financial Audit Agency (BPK) regarding the results of SPI levies (institutional development contributions) we can respond that after the Constitutional Court Decision Number: 31/PUU-X /2012.
And the Supreme Court Circular Letter (SEMA) Number 4 of 2016 has expanded or increased the number of agencies authorized to calculate state financial losses in cases of criminal acts of corruption.
Namely the Financial Audit Agency (BPK), Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP), Inspectorate, Investigators, appointed Public Accountants.
Apart from that, the existence of public accountants to calculate state financial losses has also been explained in the explanation of Article 32 paragraph (1) of Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Corruption Crimes as amended by Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning Amendments to the Law. -Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Corruption Crimes.
“Therefore, the objection or exception submitted by the defendant or the Defendant’s Legal Counsel Team should be declared rejected,” he said. ***