Tuesday, 28 July 2026
MEDAN | INDATANEWS.COM - The alleged corruption case and related money laundering (TPPU) allegations involving a former Deputy Attorney General for Special Crimes (Jampidsus) represent one of the most significant tests of the credibility of Indonesia's legal system. The case challenges not only law enforcement's ability to uncover alleged criminal acts but also the state's consistency in upholding the principle of equality before the law.
When a former high-ranking law enforcement official becomes the subject of an investigation or inquiry, public attention is directed not only toward the final outcome but also toward the process leading to that result.
From the perspective of a state governed by law, the fundamental issue is not who is being investigated or who is eventually designated as a suspect. More importantly, the question is whether the entire process is based on proper evidentiary standards, conducted in accordance with criminal procedure law, and handled by institutions free from conflicts of interest.
As an academic specializing in criminal law and money laundering offenses, I believe law enforcement must not be influenced by public pressure, media coverage, or political dynamics.
A rule-of-law system recognizes only one objective standard: lawful evidence, procedures consistent with criminal procedural regulations, and authority exercised based on legal provisions. In a highly scrutinized case such as this, law enforcement authorities must transparently answer at least two fundamental questions.
First, it must be determined whether the evidence collected actually meets the standard of sufficient initial suspicion or has developed into sufficient evidence to designate an individual as a suspect.
Second, clarification is needed regarding the legal basis and institutional reasoning behind the transfer of a suspected case that was previously handled by the police and later came under the authority of the prosecutor's office.
These two questions are inseparable because they affect both the legitimacy of the law enforcement process and public trust in criminal justice institutions.
The concept of sufficient initial suspicion has long been one of the most debated issues in Indonesian criminal procedural law. The discussion has taken place not only in practice but also through extensive academic research.
The former Jampidsus himself addressed this issue in his dissertation titled "Reformulation of Sufficient Initial Suspicion for Asset Seizure in Money Laundering Offenses."
The study explained that regulations concerning sufficient initial suspicion continue to face various problems, including unclear legal norms (vague norms), regulatory gaps (legal vacuum), and conflicting legal provisions (conflict of norms).
The research also emphasized that coercive measures such as arrest, detention, or asset seizure in money laundering cases must be based on an adequate factual foundation (probable cause). This is intended to ensure that investigative actions remain within the framework of human rights protection and the principle of due process of law.
This perspective provides an important message for law enforcement practice. The two pieces of evidence required under Indonesia's Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) should not merely be viewed as formal or administrative requirements for determining a suspect.
The crucial issue is whether the totality of evidence can form a logical, complete, and interconnected legal construction that demonstrates the existence of a criminal act, the involvement of a particular person, and the relationship between the perpetrator and assets allegedly obtained through illegal means.
In other words, the quality of evidence is far more important than the mere quantity of evidence.
Another important aspect concerns the transfer of a suspected case from the police to the prosecutor's office. Under existing law, such a transfer is generally possible as long as there is a clear legal basis for authority in accordance with applicable regulations.
However, formal legality does not always correspond to public legitimacy. In a case involving a former high-ranking prosecutor, transparency becomes an essential requirement.
The public has the right to receive explanations regarding the legal basis, institutional reasons, coordination mechanisms between agencies, and objective considerations behind the change in case handling.
An open explanation is not merely an institutional defense but part of the state's accountability in maintaining public trust.
When an alleged case involving a former representative of the prosecutor's office is investigated by the prosecutor's office itself, expectations regarding the independence of the process naturally increase.
This does not mean the prosecutor's office lacks authority. Rather, because of its position in the case, the public expects guarantees that the investigation will be conducted professionally, objectively, free from external influence, and without conflicts of interest.
In a modern state based on the rule of law, a universal principle applies: justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.
Therefore, procedural transparency is a crucial component of law enforcement legitimacy.
If the case also involves elements of money laundering, the evidentiary process becomes significantly more complex. Investigators must prove not only the predicate crime but also trace financial flows through the approaches of follow the money, follow the asset, and follow the beneficiary.
This means investigators must be able to explain financial transactions, asset control mechanisms, ownership structures, relationships among parties, and the actual beneficial owners of assets allegedly derived from criminal activities.
Such evidence cannot rely solely on witness testimony but must also be supported by scientific evidence, including forensic examinations, financial transaction analysis, asset tracing, digital evidence analysis, and financial assessments that establish a complete chain of evidence.
The success of combating corruption and money laundering is ultimately not measured by how quickly someone is declared a suspect. Instead, it depends on the quality of evidence that can withstand scrutiny throughout every stage of judicial proceedings and ultimately lead to a legally binding verdict.
Rushed law enforcement actions may weaken cases through pretrial challenges or judicial review of evidence. Conversely, excessively slow handling may undermine public confidence in the state's commitment to combating corruption.
This case should become an opportunity for all law enforcement institutions to demonstrate that the rule of law truly stands above institutional or personal interests.
There must be no preferential treatment simply because an individual previously held a strategic position within a law enforcement institution. At the same time, no one should be designated as a suspect without sufficient legal grounds and evidence.
Ultimately, public trust in the criminal justice system depends on law enforcement authorities' commitment to upholding the principles of due process of law.
Every investigative action must be based on facts, lawful evidence, investigator integrity, professional institutions, and compliance with legal standards.
Law enforcement must not be driven by public pressure, political interests, or a desire to punish without adequate evidence.
At this point, the dignity of the rule of law is at stake. A fair legal system is not one that merely has the power to punish, but one that can objectively, transparently, and legally prove every accusation brought before it. (IDNC)
BY: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ariman Sitompul, S.H., M.H. | EDITOR: Fik Sagala
The author is Chairman of the Indonesian Association of Money Laundering Law Experts and Head of the Master of Law Program at Dharmawangsa University.
/home/u7391150/public_html/indatanews.com/theme/function.php on line 28