InfoSAWIT, JAKARTA – The team of attorneys of the defendant, Pierre Togar Sitanggang claimed that The Indictment of Public Prosecutor Team in the court of palm cooking oil corruption case did not meet the material and formal requirements, inaccurate, unclear, and incomplete so that it has juridical implications, null and void (van rechtswegenietig).
It was told by the team of attorneys of the defendant, Pierre Togar Sitanggang led by Denny Kailimang, S.H., M.H. in his objection. He thought, the indictment of the public prosecutors is unclear, inaccurate, and incomplete (van rechtswegenietig) as it referred to in Article 143 paragraph (2) letter b Juncto. Article 143 paragraph (3) Criminal Procedure Code.
Denny thought, in this case, the accuracy of the public prosecutors is needed to prepare the indictment in order not to have drawback and or fallacy which could meet the annulment of the indictment or cannot be proved.
He also asked for the Judge that checks, adjudicates, and calls the case to carefully notice fairly that The Indictment with Register Number: PDS-18/M.1.10/Ft.1/08/2022, on 8 August 2022 is unacceptable and should be null and void because it does not meet the material and formal conditions as it referred to Article 143 paragraph (2) letter b Juncto Article 143 paragraph (3) Criminal Procedure Code.
He continued, the Public Prosecutor did not clearly, accurately, and completely analyze the assumption of crime which the defendant did on behalf of Pierre Togar Sitanggang.
"In the Indictment the Public Prosecutor team just mentioned the period time of crime (the defendant) in January 2022 to March 2022. In fact, in the Order of Investigation for the Period of Crime Suspected took place in January 2021 to March 2022," Denny said after the court in the Corruption Criminal Court, Central Jakarta Court, Tuesday (6/9/2022).
He continued, based on the Primary and Subsidiary Indictment, the Public Prosecutor Team stated that the defendant as General Manager in General Affair PT Musim Mas committed/participated in committing acts against the law of criminal acts from January 2022 to March 2022 at the office of Ministry of Trade Indonesian Republic.
"Tempus delicti charged on the defendant, as a matter of fact, is different from tempus delicti in the investigation process. In fact, in the Investigative Warrant Number: PRIN-22/F.2/Fd.2/04/2022, on 19 April 2022 and Suspect Determination Letter Number: Tap-20/F.2/Fd.2/04/2022, on 19 April 2022, the case of tempus delicti is in January 2021 to March 2022. It means, tempus delicti is different between the investigation result and tempus delicti on The Indictment," he explained.
The discrepancy of tempus delicti reflects that the Public Prosecutor team is inaccurate to formulate the indictment because it does not match the fact of investigation result.
"The discrepancy of tempus delicti indicates that this case is not carefully but recklessly managed,” he said, as in the official statement to InfoSAWIT, Wednesday (7/9/2022). (T2)