METROTV — Metro TV
20260806 063000 UTC
447 transcript segments
Google Cloud Speech-to-Text API (Chirp) + Gemini 2.5 Flash Non-Thinking
Data courtesy of The GDELT Project (https://www.gdeltproject.org/), from the Internet Archive TV News Archive.
Machine transcription. Treat it as a searchable index of what was broadcast, not a verbatim quotation record.

[00:00:00] originally, then people were arrested because then punished by the public, he
[00:00:04] must be guilty, of course not so, when we uphold the law
[00:00:07] we must really pay attention to their rights,
[00:00:10] the procedure must be correct, if the law enforcement
[00:00:13] procedure is not correct, it is the same as taking
[00:00:16] the law into your own hands. Well, this is what we certainly need to look at wisely,
[00:00:20] okay, the Attorney General's Office also has a responsibility
[00:00:23] to carry out its functions correctly. Just imagine, in one of the investigation
[00:00:27] warrants, it was stated that the incident occurred in
[00:00:31] 2028. This is 2026. How is it
[00:00:34] possible that the writing is very fatal?
[00:00:38] If it's two, if it's three, we found nine or even
[00:00:41] more. Is that proper law enforcement? Well,
[00:00:45] that's the issue we're going to test. We're not
[00:00:48] saying we're definitely right, but that's the issue we want
[00:00:52] to take to the pre-trial process. If the
[00:00:55] substance of law enforcement is the Attorney General's Office, please proceed.
[00:00:58] We respect that. Okay, thank
[00:01:02] you for the explanation, Mas Febri. Now, Mas Boyamin, so
[00:01:06] now there are two focuses, right? How about the investigative
[00:01:10] process and also the designation of suspects or the truth
[00:01:14] of the evidence? In your opinion, how big is the chance that
[00:01:17] this pre-trial will be granted? I
[00:01:20] can't preemptively say, because sometimes there are cases
[00:01:24] that are granted under conditions that I think should not
[00:01:27] be granted, but there are also very strong cases that should
[00:01:31] be granted but are not. Usually in the South Jakarta court, I
[00:01:35] know that happens often. Well, it's okay,
[00:01:38] we'll wait, we'll follow the process. For example, I
[00:01:42] filed a pre-trial last time to declare the transfer
[00:01:46] from the police to the prosecutor's office
[00:01:49] null and void. What was the intention? So that if the prosecutor
[00:01:53] takes it, it's faster. Actually, as an encouragement, when he was detained,
[00:01:56] the first hearing, I withdrew it, the urgency was no longer there. Well,
[00:02:00] preparing for the second pre-trial, if this search
[00:02:03] is not carried out, I already declared last week that
[00:02:06] yesterday, searches began at the private house in Radio Dalam,
[00:02:09] then perhaps today, if I'm not mistaken, there's news in
[00:02:13] Bandung. I have some other savings outside Java.
[00:02:17] If those are not searched, I will sue for pre-trial. So, the investigators
[00:02:20] are not in a good position there. Now, they can be sued by the suspect,
[00:02:24] the perpetrator, and also by the victim. I represent them, and I
[00:02:27] am consistent and have never changed my position as a lawyer
[00:02:31] for corruption cases. Because I
[00:02:34] warrant is wrong, have declared myself to defend victims through public advocacy,
[00:02:36] then, if this process is not carried
[00:02:40] out correctly in other cases,
[00:02:44] besides the searches, maybe the designation of suspects that I think
[00:02:47] are eligible. This is only three, my version is at least five,
[00:02:51] for example. What about these two? I will expose it there. So,
[00:02:55] we are indeed testing this. That's why investigators should
[00:02:58] be more professional, more excellent, better at handling
[00:03:01] any criminal cases, including corruption, Mr. Marcel. Okay, in short, Mas Boyamin,
[00:03:05] with this pre-trial,
[00:03:08] but they must be present is the hope that it can remain focused on the main case
[00:03:10] later? Oh, yes, it's okay. The main case will still proceed.
[00:03:14] This is just complementary. For example, in the case
[00:03:17] of Setya Novanto, the first pre-trial by the KPK lost,
[00:03:21] then it was corrected, and in the second pre-trial,
[00:03:24] Setya Novanto lost, and it was taken to the main case, right?
[00:03:28] So, it's okay. Investigators should not be allergic
[00:03:31] to pre-trials, both from the side of the perpetrator
[00:03:35] and the side of the victim, because I frequently
[00:03:38] endorse cases, for example, the victims of Wana Arta
[00:03:42] whose money laundering was not processed for a very long time until the person became
[00:03:45] a fugitive. I endorse them for pre-trial. I have taught several friends outside Java
[00:03:49] to file pre-trials for stalled cases. So, yes, this is indeed the duty
[00:03:52] of law enforcers. For example, in my case, it was only once, but then it happened many times. I was once
[00:03:56] protested by a judge, "Your job is to hold trials, right?" Okay, Mas
[00:04:00] Boyamin, later we will discuss how the public perceives
[00:04:03] the Attorney General's Office handling the case of the
[00:04:06] former Jamitsuusga. We will discuss
[00:04:09] it after the break. Stay tuned to Cover Board Sides.
[00:04:21] Which one do you
[00:04:22] choose?
[00:04:28] Joko Susilo, at that time, who was
[00:04:33] Every choice can be
[00:04:33] assets that a game changer for
[00:04:35] laundering, that were
[00:04:36] today.
[00:04:43] Easy access, stay updated without
[00:04:45] hassle, cooler with
[00:04:49] Medcom, this is about and for
[00:04:53] those who are full of questions, who
[00:04:57] choose to be silent, we must remember that... Power is
[00:05:01] owned by the people, sovereignty is the sovereignty of the people, we must exercise
[00:05:04] power for the benefit of the people. This is the place for
[00:05:08] policy makers to answer all questions, as well as a space
[00:05:12] for the people to understand their value to the country.
[00:05:15] Indonesian Priority every Monday to Friday at
[00:05:18] 0:30
[00:06:07] adukti, Thursday, August
[00:06:09] 6th.
[00:06:17] You are back on Cover Board sides. Viewers, let's first show
[00:06:21] the public's perception regarding the professionalism of the Attorney General's
[00:06:25] Office in handling the case of the ex-Jampitsus. Here
[00:06:28] it is. If we're talking about
[00:06:32] doubts, there are definitely doubts because this case was initially
[00:06:35] handled by the Indonesian National Police,
[00:06:39] but then it was taken over by the prosecutor's office.
[00:06:43] Again, we, as the community, hope that because
[00:06:47] this is a country of law, everything should be objective.
[00:06:50] For the case itself, I don't think it will be
[00:06:54] finished or completed because it's
[00:06:58] being passed around. They must be firm
[00:07:00] in
[00:07:02] interrogating
[00:07:05] all parties involved so that everything
[00:07:09] can find a clear
[00:07:14] point. If you look at cases that have happened
[00:07:18] since a long time ago, corruption cases can never
[00:07:21] be completely finished and we don't
[00:07:24] know the continuation. So,
[00:07:28] we won't see how it ends, it's just being passed around
[00:07:32] continuously. I'm going to Mas Boyamin.
[00:07:35] Mas Boyamin, from your various statements, it seems that the doubts are the same
[00:07:38] as the public's, right? What are the reasons, Mas?
[00:07:42] Yamin is still doubtful about the investigation at the Attorney General's Office?
[00:07:46] There was a history that the Attorney General's Office suspended four people,
[00:07:50] the KPK leaders at the time of Candra Hamzah and
[00:07:53] Samat Samanto. Then
[00:07:56] the second time was during Bambang Wijayanto and Mr.
[00:07:59] Abraham Samad. Those were
[00:08:02] other people. Well, it's possible that these other people
[00:08:05] were suspended, meaning stopped, for the public interest. Well,
[00:08:09] it's possible that they then said, "Well, other people asked
[00:08:12] to be suspended and it was granted, why can't this be?" Right? So, in the end,
[00:08:16] it could not only be exposed or neglected or
[00:08:20] whatever, but even suspended in the end. That's why
[00:08:23] I have told my friends to prepare to go to the Constitutional Court.
[00:08:27] The suspension for the public interest only applies to
[00:08:30] criminal acts, except for capital offenses,
[00:08:34] second, national security, and third, special criminal acts,
[00:08:37] including corruption, should not be suspended. But it can be suspended,
[00:08:41] so the issue of doubt is actually in the hands
[00:08:44] of the Attorney General's Office. This is not just "orange eating orange" anymore, it's like a tangerine eating a
[00:08:48] pomelo, right? Okay, so what's the solution, Mas Boyamin?
[00:08:52] Should we still urge the KPK to take over this case?
[00:08:55] Yes, and I ask Mr. Febridiansah to
[00:08:59] nudge the KPK to be brave enough to take over
[00:09:02] because in Article 10, the reasons for taking over
[00:09:06] are three: one, protecting the perpetrator;
[00:09:09] two, if there is corruption, for example, blackmail; okay, three,
[00:09:13] executive interference. Well, executive interference is already there,
[00:09:17] transferred from the police to the Attorney General's Office, that's executive interference.
[00:09:20] So, according to Mas Boyamin, this already meets the reasons
[00:09:24] for the KPK to take over? It should definitely meet them.
[00:09:27] And it's like this, for the people to still believe
[00:09:31] in eradicating corruption, if this is still handled by the police
[00:09:35] and the prosecutor's office, they won't believe it much. But
[00:09:38] the problem is with the KPK itself, they're afraid and
[00:09:41] ZIPER, you know. That's the problem. So, in the MBG case, the KPK
[00:09:45] should have handled it. It was reported 5 months earlier, but it wasn't handled.
[00:09:48] This case of alleged connection to
[00:09:51] what Mr. Firansah is facing now was reported by my friends at the end of 2024
[00:09:55] to the KPK, but it wasn't handled. Then yesterday, there was a case
[00:09:58] presentation at the Regional Police,
[00:10:01] and everything was already named on the table, but the person fled,
[00:10:05] even though two deputies were assigned by the KPK. Yes, that's right.
[00:10:09] So, I don't expect it anymore. In the end, I even hope that
[00:10:12] from Mr. Febri Adriansah's pre-trial, through Mr. Febri Adriansah,
[00:10:16] this will involve two parties:
[00:10:20] the prosecutor and the police. The potential is that the prosecutor's
[00:10:23] request might be granted, meaning that the police's request
[00:10:27] is rejected, which means the designation of suspects by the police will be
[00:10:30] invalid, so the police will be in charge instead. Well, if that happens,
[00:10:34] the police might not want to handle it anymore because it has been transferred.
[00:10:38] So, the KPK actually needs to start
[00:10:41] preparing to receive this.
[00:10:44] Still urging the KPK, right? Now, let's ask Mas Febri. Mas Febri,
[00:10:48] you also served as a KPK spokesperson. Which
[00:10:52] case would you be more comfortable handling? A KPK
[00:10:55] or prosecutor's case? As lawyers,
[00:10:59] we don't handle cases based on comfort or discomfort. We look
[00:11:03] at the law. Who handles it is up to
[00:11:06] the state institutions to discuss and make
[00:11:10] decisions. I think that's outside my domain. I want to go back to
[00:11:13] the substantial issue of this case, which is
[00:11:17] the importance of predicate crime. I'll read
[00:11:20] it. There is a Constitutional Court decision number 90
[00:11:24] of 2015 on page 113. This
[00:11:28] explicitly states, and this is also
[00:11:31] for public education, it states here, "Whereas a predicate
[00:11:34] crime is a criminal act that produces
[00:11:37] money or assets that are then
[00:11:41] laundered. This means there must first
[00:11:43] be a predicate crime before the proceeds
[00:11:47] are laundered. Therefore, there cannot be money laundering without
[00:11:51] a predicate crime first." The Constitutional Court is very clear
[00:11:54] and consistent in several decisions stating this. It even
[00:11:58] emphasizes this: "As a follow-up crime, according
[00:12:01] to the court, to conduct investigations, prosecutions, and examinations in
[00:12:04] money laundering cases, there must first be
[00:12:08] a predicate crime." The Constitutional Court says
[00:12:11] this. Article 74, the explanation says
[00:12:15] investigate the predicate crime first, then find evidence for money laundering.
[00:12:19] What happened in the three investigation warrants?
[00:12:22] In one investigation warrant, it mentions alleged
[00:12:26] corruption at Krakatau Steel, for example,
[00:12:29] a subsidiary of Krakatau Steel, and money laundering. In one investigation
[00:12:32] warrant, it directly mentions corruption and money laundering.
[00:12:36] When was the investigation carried out? When
[00:12:39] was the process of finding initial
[00:12:41] evidence carried out? That is what was violated in principle
[00:12:45] in the investigation warrant issued by this law enforcement
[00:12:48] institution. The question is, if
[00:12:51] the investigation warrant is not correct, if the investigation
[00:12:54] warrant is legally flawed, if the investigation
[00:12:59] is the coercive action carried out valid? Of course
[00:13:02] not. In our opinion, that is what needs to be corrected in
[00:13:06] this pre-trial mechanism. We are upholding the law,
[00:13:10] not punishing people without a law enforcement process. That's why
[00:13:13] the process must run correctly. There are a number of Constitutional Court
[00:13:16] decisions, even until 2021, this is 2015, the Law
[00:13:20] No. 8 of 2010, which consistently states
[00:13:24] that predicate crimes
[00:13:28] do not need to wait for proof in court, no need,
[00:13:33] at the beginning. It cannot suddenly become money laundering. There is no
[00:13:36] history of a predicate crime suddenly becoming money laundering.
[00:13:40] That is our most fundamental criticism of the handling of
[00:13:44] this case. Okay, if so, we will still discuss this pre-trial,
[00:13:47] Mas Boyamin. If the judge later decides
[00:13:51] to accept FA's pre-trial, where will this lead?
[00:13:58] The Attorney General's Office will conduct a new, more complete, more perfect investigation.
[00:14:01] If there are any writing errors, they can be corrected again,
[00:14:05] just like the KPK in the Setya Novanto case, that's what happened. There is no
[00:14:08] prohibition that if a pre-trial is granted,
[00:14:11] a new investigation cannot be repeated. Sometimes people talk
[00:14:14] about the designation of suspects being invalid because, for example, they were never
[00:14:18] examined as witnesses. Well, there are also fundamental
[00:14:22] things like that, or slightly more advanced things, because they don't
[00:14:25] have two pieces of evidence. According to the investigator's version, there are two pieces of evidence,
[00:14:29] but according to the judge, there's only one. So, it needs to be completed.
[00:14:33] Another pre-trial can be filed, but it would be too much
[00:14:36] if the investigator loses the first pre-trial and then doesn't perfect
[00:14:40] the evidence. And again, the Constitutional Court decision
[00:14:44] earlier said that. It must have a predicate
[00:14:47] crime. Where is the predicate crime in the indictment? It's
[00:14:51] explained like this: bank embezzlement, it's just
[00:14:54] explained as bank embezzlement. But the charges are all
[00:14:58] money laundering articles 3, 4, 5. In the case of Aseng
[00:15:02] Yanto Firman Hirtanto, it was also like that. It was mentioned in the
[00:15:05] indictment 1, 2, 3. This is because there was a debate about predicate crime.
[00:15:09] Your prediction is that this case will take a long time. Before that,
[00:15:12] there was a final decision in 2026, also named
[00:15:15] Windu Setya Aji.
[00:15:18] He was once involved in a corruption case, then after the corruption
[00:15:22] case was finished, it was brought to money laundering, and the judge
[00:15:25] acquitted him. This is double jeopardy if you reverse
[00:15:28] it. Money laundering with the process
[00:15:32] of corruption, the realm is still money laundering charges with a series
[00:15:35] of origins from corruption. That's what it means. The proof of money laundering comes from
[00:15:39] corruption, money laundering from fraud, money laundering from
[00:15:42] embezzlement, that's it, sir. So, in my opinion, this is something
[00:15:46] that, in terms of law enforcement, is indeed a challenge
[00:15:49] for all of us, and I will continue to monitor it. If
[00:15:53] this is
[00:15:56] a long process, I'm patient enough for it. I've been
[00:16:00] doing pre-trials since 2000, even
[00:16:02] 1996. From the victim's side, it was 2001.
[00:16:05] I started in Solo, then Semarang, then
[00:16:09] Banjarnegara, and then Jakarta. In Lampung too.
[00:16:12] And almost all of them, I won about
[00:16:15] 10 out of 300 cases. Okay. It was granted from the perspective
[00:16:19] of stopping the material investigation, even though there was no triangle,
[00:16:23] because the case was stalled. So, if the Attorney General's Office later
[00:16:26] stalls or slows down, I will sue for pre-trial in this case. So,
[00:16:30] that's the good thing about law enforcement, that from the victim's side,
[00:16:34] I advocate, and God willing, I will never switch to defending corruption.
[00:16:37] Even narcotics, I don't handle. I've been handling cases as a lawyer since a long time ago.
[00:16:41] Corporations are better, not having to deal with
[00:16:44] the impression that people always defend those who pay. It's not good. But for Mr. Febri,
[00:16:48] it's okay, it's part of my knowledge, my profession, I respect it. Okay,
[00:16:52] we will continue this discussion, but after the break, stay with us on Coverbot
[00:18:50] Viewers, we will read the questions that have come in
[00:18:54] from Metro TV netizens. Let's look at the screen behind me at the questions
[00:18:57] asked, one of which is from Gilang,
[00:19:01] "If corruption eradication truly wants to be enforced,
[00:19:04] just prove the Febri case can be finished."
[00:19:08] Now, if we ask Mas Febri Dansyah as the
[00:19:11] legal counsel, how confident are you that
[00:19:14] this pre-trial can resolve the FA case?
[00:19:17] Maybe not resolve it, if we
[00:19:21] are perhaps more focused on how confident we are with
[00:19:24] the legal arguments and evidence that will be presented. We
[00:19:27] are very confident that there are so many
[00:19:30] violations of procedural law that occurred in
[00:19:34] the process of handling this case, which we
[00:19:38] already mentioned yesterday, nine of them, starting
[00:19:41] from trivial things related to the
[00:19:44] year 2028, the incident was called the year
[00:19:48] 2028, up to things that are
[00:19:52] fundamental, right? There is a Supreme Court
[00:19:55] decision at the review level in
[00:19:58] 2021. Maybe we still remember the
[00:20:02] former police officer,
[00:20:05] processed by the KPK. The Supreme Court said
[00:20:08] this: were accused of money
[00:20:13] seized before the predicate
[00:20:16] crime occurred, the predicate crime was traffic police at
[00:20:20] that time, were not considered money
[00:20:22] laundering. That's the importance of tempus delicti,
[00:20:26] that's the importance of the timing of the predicate crime, that's
[00:20:29] the importance of what the predicate crime is. So, it's not a lump sum.
[00:20:33] People can't be accused in a lump sum, "you've been wrong since
[00:20:36] you took office." That's not how it works. Show
[00:20:39] where the fault is. Well, in the end, the Supreme Court returned
[00:20:43] all of Joko Susilo's assets. If you are serious
[00:20:46] about handling cases, then that should not happen.
[00:20:50] The question goes back to the issue of gold.
[00:20:53] A simple question, maybe the Attorney General's Office
[00:20:56] can't answer now, which was asked earlier, who owns it and where did it come
[00:21:00] from? A simple question. If it
[00:21:03] is considered the proceeds of a crime,
[00:21:07] a crime committed when? It must
[00:21:11] be proven when that gold was obtained.
[00:21:13] If it's money, maybe it can be known
[00:21:17] from the serial number because at that time the police
[00:21:21] cooperated with the FBI, maybe it can be known from the serial number.
[00:21:24] But when exactly was the money
[00:21:27] received? That is very important to determine
[00:21:31] whether these assets
[00:21:34] are accused of money laundering before
[00:21:37] the predicate crime existed or after. Well,
[00:21:41] that's why if you want to be fair, if you want to be clear, if you want
[00:21:44] to be thorough, first clarify
[00:21:47] whose assets these are, where they came
[00:21:51] from, when they were obtained,
[00:21:54] then we can talk about who should be held criminally
[00:21:57] responsible for the seized assets. That's when the process is
[00:22:01] fair. But now, everything is in the dark,
[00:22:04] the substance of the process is dark, vague.
[00:22:08] The formal procedural law can be said to have many
[00:22:11] holes, so many things that
[00:22:15] are not fulfilled there. Then what kind of law enforcement
[00:22:18] do we expect here? We are not concluding at the beginning, but
[00:22:22] we want to bring this to a more honorable forum in the pre-trial
[00:22:26] process, in the courtroom.
[00:22:29] Okay. Mas Boyamin, do you agree that if we want it to be as
[00:22:32] clear as possible, the evidence must be clear first?
[00:22:36] Don't let it seem like I'm defending the prosecutor's office, right? This will then
[00:22:40] make me the prosecutor's spokesperson. I also
[00:22:44] attack the prosecutor's office in any case, including this one,
[00:22:47] right? If I considered it slow yesterday, why not?
[00:22:51] I would sue it, but finally, it was searched. Back to the gold. As far
[00:22:54] as I know, what was publicized by the police was unlabelled
[00:22:58] gold, and it was pure, very pure. The shape was not precise.
[00:23:02] If I could hold it, I would squeeze it, and it would probably change shape
[00:23:05] because of its purity. But I go back to Mr. Febri
[00:23:08] Adriansah, as a law enforcer, is it okay
[00:23:12] to store something whose origin is unclear? This is
[00:23:16] worrying and could be slander. I was taught well by the late
[00:23:21] Mr. Almarhum to avoid a lot of slander, for example, not being willing to eat
[00:23:24] in restaurants when I brought it to the Constitutional Court. It shouldn't
[00:23:28] be arbitrary to accept deposited goods, especially
[00:23:32] if it's suspected illegal gold. It could be because there's no label, no
[00:23:36] product information. It could be suspected illegal gold,
[00:23:39] contraband. Why did he accept deposited goods as a law enforcer?
[00:23:42] Why was his house allowed to be
[00:23:46] used as a storage place? In my opinion, this is something reckless.
[00:23:50] Secondly, it is also related to
[00:23:53] money. Accepting deposits.
[00:23:56] In money laundering, there is also Article 3, sorry,
[00:24:00] Article 5, which is called passive money laundering,
[00:24:03] passive. What about passive banking?
[00:24:07] In our Criminal Code, in our Criminal Procedure Code, there is also
[00:24:10] Article 55, paragraph 1, letter 1,
[00:24:14] regarding participation, aiding and abetting.
[00:24:17] That alone is enough. So now, in Article 20 of the new
[00:24:21] Criminal Code. Well, in my opinion, this is precisely
[00:24:24] the anomaly for Mr. Febdi Adriansyah when he
[00:24:27] allows and doesn't prohibit
[00:24:30] his house from being used to store,
[00:24:33] even if the house is rented out to someone else, for example.
[00:24:36] people are very careful, people should not let their houses
[00:24:40] be rented for drugs, for example, be very thorough, put up CCTV and all sorts of things.
[00:24:44] Mr. Febri Adriansyah is a law enforcer, moreover, his
[00:24:47] dissertation is about
[00:24:50] money laundering, which has the potential to become slander. He could be slandered,
[00:24:54] you know, anytime, that's how it is. But why isn't this
[00:24:57] avoided? This, in my opinion, is precisely the anomaly of Mr. Febri
[00:25:01] Adriansyah, Ms. Marcel. Mas Febri, please respond and also
[00:25:04] perhaps answer the readiness to face
[00:25:08] the pre-trial. I'm interested, earlier Bang
[00:25:11] Bonyamin said illegal gold could
[00:25:14] be illegal gold, yes, it's an assumption, it could
[00:25:18] be illegal gold. Now the question is, if it's illegal gold,
[00:25:21] for example, for example, yes, from
[00:25:25] illegal mining, for example, yes, I just want to give
[00:25:28] an example, there are so many possibilities, whether it's a corruption
[00:25:32] crime, it could be that the original crime
[00:25:36] was, for example, illegal mining
[00:25:39] or illegal
[00:25:41] gold trading. If the original criminal act
[00:25:44] is not a corruption crime, what happens
[00:25:48] is that the Attorney General's Office does not have the authority to handle
[00:25:51] this case. That's the importance of evidence, prove
[00:25:55] first that the gold is truly the result of corruption or
[00:25:59] who committed the corruption, then
[00:26:01] we can. Well, before that, then we can talk
[00:26:05] about who stored it, who
[00:26:08] ordered it, who was together, that's
[00:26:12] the first thing. The second thing, Bang Boyamin said
[00:26:15] it's very anomalous if Mr. Fa, Mr.
[00:26:19] Febri Adriansyah allows
[00:26:22] people to store valuable items at home,
[00:26:25] even though the house is not his own.
[00:26:27] The question is, what if it turns out that Mr.
[00:26:31] has no knowledge that the item is there? Let alone
[00:26:35] permitting it, let alone allowing it, if
[00:26:38] there is no knowledge, then all assumptions
[00:26:42] become null and void. Why? Because the condition for the
[00:26:45] participation article in the old Criminal Code, Article 55,
[00:26:49] the new Criminal Code, Article 20, absolutely
[00:26:52] requires double intent, double
[00:26:55] will. Even one intent is difficult
[00:26:57] to prove. What is it to know?
[00:27:01] To know that it's wrong? Still done, knowing that there
[00:27:04] was an act of storage and then willing
[00:27:08] it. Even one is difficult, let alone double
[00:27:10] intent. But our law enforcers have the
[00:27:13] authority and knowledge. They should be the ones to dig
[00:27:16] into this, so it's not burdensome for the suspect.
[00:27:20] Okay, can you explain? Let's give Mas
[00:27:24] Boyamin a brief opportunity. (Boyamin) analyzes it,
[00:27:27] that giving, that giving can be bribery, it can be gratification, it can be extortion.
[00:27:31] That will be proven by law enforcement. And then also related
[00:27:35] to double fault and all that, involvement and all that. For me, Mr. Febri is a
[00:27:39] role model. I idolized him before 2023,
[00:27:42] you know, but then there was an event that made me stop idolizing him. Well,
[00:27:45] it will be proven in court later,
[00:27:49] but certainly there will be a pre-trial first. We'll wait for the results. Thank
[00:27:52] you, Mas Febri Adiansyah, legal counsel of Febri Adriansyah, and also Mas
[00:27:56] Boyamin, coordinator. Thank you for joining us on today's news. And viewers,
[00:28:00] this concludes our meeting. I'm Marndo. Thank you for
[00:28:03] your company. See you next week.
[00:30:15] You are watching Hatla News at 2 PM Western Indonesian
[00:30:19] Time. President Prabowo Subianto today met with hundreds
[00:30:22] of researchers from the National Research and Innovation Agency or Brin
[00:30:25] at the Presidential Palace in Jakarta. The President is said
[00:30:29] to be giving directions related to the projected use of technology products from
[00:30:33] Brin. President Prabowo Subianto
[00:30:37] summoned 150 Brin researchers to comprehensively
[00:30:40] discuss solving various national problems
[00:30:44] using technology. Head of Brin, Arif Satria,
[00:30:47] said that previously, Brin researchers had conducted
[00:30:51] a number of presentations and polls for the President.