Supreme Court Strengthens Decision to Seized First Travel Assets To State

News24xx.com -

JAKARTA - The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Depok District Court and the Bandung High Court on First Travel assets that were confiscated to the state.

As the verdict Number 3096 K / Pid.Sus / 2018 Year 2019 was read on January 31, 2019. In the ruling, the Panel of Judges led by Andi Samsan Nganro knocked on the hammer that the evidence seized in the case was confiscated for the state.

"That as a matter of fact the trial of the evidence is the result of a crime committed by the defendants and confiscated from the defendants who have been proven to have committed a 'fraud' crime and were also proven to have committed a crime of 'money laundering', therefore based on the provisions of Article 39 of the Criminal Code in June Article 46 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the evidence was confiscated for the state, "wrote the proposal, which was reported from the official website of the Supreme Court, Monday (11/18/2019).

As for the sentence of corporal punishment, given to the President Director of PT First Anugerah Karya Wisata (First Travel) Andika Surachman is 20 years in prison.

Meanwhile, his wife, Anniesa Hasibuan, who is also a director in the company, was sentenced to 18 years in prison.

Both are also required to pay a fine of Rp. 10 billion each.

If the fine is not paid, it will be replaced with an individual imprisonment for eight months.

Meanwhile, First Travel Finance Director Kiki Hasibuan was sentenced to 15 years in prison and fined Rp5 billion in eight months of imprisonment.

According to the Head of the Law and Public Relations Bureau of the Supreme Court, Abdullah, this ruling is in accordance with existing laws in Indonesia. Namely, Article 39 jo Article 46 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

"That the evidence was confiscated for the state. We cannot deviate from state law," he said.

He also said that the First Travel case is not a civil case, but a criminal case. In material law, anyone can give a different interpretation.

"But in the procedural law, this should not be interpreted again. Those are the rules that must be obeyed," he said. (R24 / Bhishma)