Prabumulih, The Indonesia Post – At the third hearing, the Public Prosecutor (JPU) responded to the defendant’s attorney’s objection regarding the alleged fraud and embezzlement against Edi Rianto, SH, MM. The JPU’s response to the objection was deemed not to answer the objection but instead to refute its own charges.
Defendant H. Edi Rianto, through his attorney, Novlis Heriansyah, SH, responded to the JPU’s response to the objection. He stated that the JPU’s narrative, which appeared to refute its own charges, was a slightly odd one, specifically the statement that the material in the exception had already entered the main case.
“In fact, the material of our exception does not deviate from the material of the indictment presented. The prosecutor’s indictment states that… until the defendant was reported, the defendant had not returned the victim’s money. To refute this narrative, our exception states that the victim’s money had been returned, although not in full, by the defendant.
Novlis Heriansyah explained that, as stated by the reporter in the 4th Investigation Report (BAP) submitted to the police investigators, in question 44, the victim-witness admitted that in early 2021, the defendant had returned Rp 200,000,000. The victim-witness also admitted that in January 2025, the defendant had returned Rp 150,000,000.
“Therefore, our exception, which reveals the defendant’s return of the victim-witness’ money, is a rebuttal of the prosecutor’s allegations in the indictment. The material of our exception does not deviate from the indictment. Even if it is considered part of the main case, it means the prosecutor is refuting its own charges,” he said.
Novlis Heriansyah also expressed his regret. The actions of the police investigators and the public prosecutor, who only listed a receipt for the transfer of Rp 500,000,000 from the victim witness to the defendant in the evidence list, without including two bank deposit slips from the defendant’s child’s account to the victim witness’s account, dated January 8, 2021, and January 17, 2025, appear to criminalize the defendant.
“If the bank deposit slip from the defendant to the victim witness’s account, as evidence of the defendant’s good intentions to return the victim witness’s money, had been included as evidence, the case against our client would certainly not have been criminalized because there was no mensrea. As stipulated in Article 19 (2) of Law No. 39 of 1999, a person cannot be convicted simply for being unable to fulfill a debt obligation,” he regretted.
Advocate Ahmad Ibnu, SH, echoed this sentiment. He stated that the case facing Edi Rianto is purely civil, especially since the defendant’s good intentions in returning the victim witness’s money refutes the element of malicious intent. As is known, the essence of a criminal act is based on a combination of two main elements: malicious intent (mens rea) and physical acts (actus reus).
“The defendant’s return of the victim’s witness’s money proves the defendant’s good intentions, thus refuting the element of malicious intent. Therefore, it is appropriate to resolve this case through civil litigation by filing a civil lawsuit. The panel of judges should also consider the return of the victim’s witness’s money as the basis and reason for granting the defendant’s exception and rejecting the prosecutor’s charges,” he said. (mhn/bbs)
Comment