METROTV — broadcast
20261105 080000 UTC
390 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] to ee the provisions in ee number 13 team
[00:00:03] 13 what is that number 13 gives a
[00:00:07] definition of assets, yes.
[00:00:09] Assets are all movable or immovable objects,
[00:00:13] both tangible and intangible, that have economic
[00:00:17] value, those are assets. But assets that can be confiscated
[00:00:20] ee what's it called, in the context of tools, it can't be
[00:00:24] generally equated to all assets, sir. The emphasis
[00:00:28] is on the tools, yes. Tools used by people,
[00:00:32] used, so it's not general,
[00:00:34] sir.
[00:00:36] Yes, yes, tools, yes, tools. Yes, that can be used
[00:00:40] like a knife, yes, yes, the
[00:00:43] emphasis
[00:00:47] Article 4. What was Article 4 in is on the tools. Yes, I agree, sir.
[00:00:51] Agree, yes, I agree, sir. Back to the formulation, back to the formulation.
[00:00:54] Yes, 59, yes, 59. Because the correct
[00:00:57] one is 59, so 59 remains sir. It remains because
[00:01:01] I have an addition, sir. I think what the chairman
[00:01:05] means is the tools used to commit crimes, right, sir? Yes,
[00:01:09] that's right, sir. If it's that, it's right, sir, it remains. Yes, if the others are
[00:01:12] the proceeds of other crimes, etc., they are in other
[00:01:15] categories.
[00:01:18] Okay, then we go down to 60
[00:01:21] again.
[00:01:27] Now, please explain the background of 60.
[00:01:31] What is the background of the DPR making this law, this draft?
[00:01:34] ini
[00:01:42] Permission, ee it's in ee 60,
[00:01:46] sir. If it's within our view, we can
[00:01:49] accept the government's proposal, sir. So, ee the item, we change
[00:01:53] it to "found items," sir. So it's not just in the
[00:01:58] sir, during the drafting process, form of goods, sir, because the development is not just
[00:02:00] goods, sir, like that, sir. The team
[00:02:03] 60. Yes, letter c
[00:02:07] in Article 5 paragraph 1 letter c, sir, we
[00:02:11] Well, I agree with what can agree because it is indeed
[00:02:14] broader, sir, not only in the form of goods but in other tangible forms,
[00:02:18] sir. That's why we use "found items,"
[00:02:20] sir. Isn't that too broad,
[00:02:24] you know? Please read letter C, everyone. This C is quite
[00:02:28] important.
[00:02:31] Abuse of power, this is dangerous. Permission, leaders,
[00:02:34] yes, right, sir. Oh, yes,
[00:02:36] please. Permission,
[00:02:40] leaders.
[00:02:42] Eh, professor, I want a broader definition of
[00:02:46] the difference between found goods
[00:02:49] Oh, is it there too? Included, right? and found items. Because I want to remind everyone again, let's not
[00:02:53] give law enforcement agencies a loophole to abuse
[00:02:56] power by using differences or
[00:03:17] Permission, so if I look at what
[00:03:20] is in our formulation and the government's formulation,
[00:03:24] the government ee
[00:03:27] assets have already been formulated in the general
[00:03:30] provisions. So then
[00:03:33] the government no longer refers to assets that are goods, because
[00:03:39] eh a post defendant as referred to assets have already been formulated there. Yes, so assets
[00:03:43] in my opinion, I agree with what mean goods that have already been formulated there, which are found items
[00:03:47] that are known to be the proceeds of a crime. That is if
[00:03:50] the government wants to shorten it, because the definition
[00:03:56] Permission, leaders, to add to of assets has already been formulated in the general provisions, so...
[00:04:00] no need to repeat it. That's roughly it, right? Yes, thank you.
[00:04:13] Again, there's still
[00:04:17] Mr. Martin. El Martin El
[00:04:23] Gondes. Done, right, stop,
[00:04:26] right?
[00:04:31] Next.
[00:04:34] Ah, yes, in 70.
[00:04:38] For the general section, we propose two parts: first, asset forfeiture law
[00:04:41] based on criminal
[00:04:44] judgments.
[00:04:48] The title.
[00:04:54] Yes.
[00:04:54] First.
[00:05:03] Bian
[00:05:04] Katumpang.
[00:05:36] That's it, okay, right? It's just a matter of the title.
[00:05:39] Title.
[00:05:52] Din 71 Article 7 paragraph
[00:05:55] 1, asset forfeiture
[00:05:58] based on a criminal judgment against the perpetrator
[00:06:02] of a crime as referred to in Article 3 letter
[00:06:06] a, carried out based on the law concerning
[00:06:09] criminal procedure or procedure law. in
[00:06:13] the law regulating crimes as
[00:06:16] referred to in Article 4 paragraphs 1 and 3.
[00:06:19] Redactional drafting corrections only, leaders.
[00:06:22] Investigation and prosecution are carried out against the perpetrators
[00:06:26] of crimes, not against asset forfeiture, so
[00:06:29] there is no investigation or prosecution against asset
[00:06:32] forfeiture under the CBF regime. Second,
[00:06:36] delete the phrase "unless otherwise stipulated
[00:06:40] in this law" because there are no other provisions regulated differently in
[00:06:43] this law. Thus, the explanation
[00:06:45] from the leadership.
[00:06:49] Answer briefly,
[00:07:07] Prof Bayu, please.
[00:07:10] Permission, ee leader, ee we still stick
[00:07:13] with the DPR draft because specifically, "unless otherwise stipulated
[00:07:17] in this law" indicates a lex specialis
[00:07:21] compared to what is in the Criminal Procedure Code and other provisions. So, this
[00:07:25] is specifically included, "unless otherwise stipulated in this law," so this is indeed
[00:07:28] an affirmation that this is a lex
[00:07:51] Oh, in Article 7, there's paragraph 3. Please check it first, sir, in the draft.
[00:07:55] Paragraph 3. Paragraph 3. We checked it last time and
[00:07:59] it was indeed pending.
[00:08:02] Included. Paragraph
[00:08:05] 3.
[00:08:10] Which one is it? Is it 73? No, right?
[00:08:56] Paragraph 2, we discuss it here, sir. Paragraph 3, sir. Discuss it here, sir. Sir.
[00:09:00] We discuss two and three here. Let's discuss
[00:09:04] two first, two first, okay,
[00:09:07] ready.
[00:09:56] Ha, for Danah, right? Yes.
[00:09:59] Letter B, right? What, sir? Paragraph 2 letter
[00:10:02] b.
[00:10:05] Article 7 paragraph 2 that is from the government
[00:10:08] to remove the word sanction, right, sir?
[00:10:12] Yes, only that, right? Oh, it's okay, that's a
[00:10:15] sanction. Yes, yes, okay, this is because
[00:10:18] Prof Edi OS understands this. Right, next. Oh, approved,
[00:10:39] 73.
[00:10:43] Ha. Deleted,
[00:10:47] right? Eh, paragraph 3. Assets related to crimes
[00:10:50] based on criminal judgments against perpetrators
[00:10:53] of crimes that can be confiscated as referred to in
[00:10:57] paragraph 1 originate from crimes as referred to
[00:11:00] in Article 4 paragraphs 1 and 3 as regulated in
[00:11:04] this law, this law, right? This law
[00:11:07] is just the paragraph. Yes, what is it? Try to find
[00:11:12] the law? Article 4. Article 4.
[00:11:16] Open Article 4 paragraphs 1 and
[00:11:19] 3.
[00:11:22] No, try to open it. Everyone can see it.
[00:11:27] Eh, operator, open Article
[00:11:28] 4.
[00:11:34] Which one is on the right? Okay.
[00:11:50] Not within the scope, right? Yes, right?
[00:11:53] Okay, back to the article. Just now.
[00:11:57] Seven, paragraph 3. Paragraph
[00:11:59] 3.
[00:12:02] Paragraph 2 or paragraph 3? Paragraph 3 only. 7 paragraph
[00:12:05] 3.
[00:12:10] Yes, paragraph 3 should be
[00:12:11] deleted.
[00:12:16] What does this article mean? Permission, leaders, ee
[00:12:20] paragraph 3 should be deleted, both the DPR's proposal and
[00:12:23] the government's, because if this exists, leaders, if it only
[00:12:27] refers to this paragraph 3, then
[00:12:30] the in personam in the Criminal Code will only be
[00:12:34] limited to crimes mentioned in Article 4 paragraph 1
[00:12:38] and paragraph 3. Whereas in the Criminal Code, all assets
[00:12:41] related to crimes can be confiscated as an additional penalty in personam.
[00:12:44] So, earlier we explained that paragraph 3
[00:12:47] should both be deleted because it will limit
[00:12:50] the in personam in the Criminal Code, which actually can be applied to all types of crimes.
[00:12:54] As an additional penalty, yes, that's right.
[00:13:40] Continue.
[00:13:48] Prof. Dim 78 paragraph
[00:13:51] 3. In the event of an examination process.
[00:13:55] The request for asset forfeiture as referred to in paragraph
[00:13:58] 2 has already begun and the suspect or
[00:14:03] in Article 6 paragraph 1 letter A
[00:14:06] is caught, the process of examining the request for asset forfeiture
[00:14:09] without a criminal judgment against the perpetrator
[00:14:13] of the crime is terminated with a judge's order, and
[00:14:16] the investigation process against the suspect and the prosecution
[00:14:20] against the suspect are continued in accordance with
[00:14:23] criminal procedural law. First, what
[00:14:27] our argument is that if caught, the request is terminated, then
[00:14:30] continued with the CB mechanism. The judge determines
[00:14:34] that the NCB examination is terminated. Second, there needs to be
[00:14:37] a termination of the NCB examination
[00:14:41] to avoid pending NCB cases
[00:14:44] when the CB examination is continued and
[00:14:47] completed. Third, if he absconds
[00:14:51] again, the JPN submits a new request. That's all.
[00:15:49] Eh, first, our reference, let's both
[00:15:53] correct Article 6 paragraph 1 letter b, because it will refer to suspects
[00:15:56] or defendants who have absconded. So our reference is not letter
[00:16:00] a, both must be Article 6 paragraph 1 letter b. Now,
[00:16:04] this certainly requires the direction of the leader. If we keep
[00:16:08] it suspended, because if someone then the suspect/defendant
[00:16:11] absconds at each stage of the process, they could
[00:16:15] die after that, meaning we
[00:16:18] don't want to repeat it, meaning it was suspended earlier, or at the same time, they could
[00:16:21] abscond again, right? So why then is the word
[00:16:24] "suspended" used? It means it can be continued
[00:16:28] later. But if, after being caught, the process
[00:16:31] is carried out in personam until completion, then
[00:16:35] there's no need for a continuation of the in rem. So we still prefer
[00:16:39] "suspended" instead of "terminated" because there's still a chance for it to be suspended.
[00:17:01] I'm afraid.
[00:17:04] Please, permission, leader, sir, professor. So this
[00:17:07] process, ee, if we look at ee
[00:17:10] the draft, it's like this:
[00:17:13] In the event that the examination process
[00:17:17] for asset forfeiture as referred to in paragraph
[00:17:20] 2 has already begun and the suspect
[00:17:23] as referred to in paragraph 6 is caught, then the process
[00:17:26] of examining asset forfeiture based on a criminal judgment
[00:17:29] against the perpetrator of a crime is suspended. This means
[00:17:33] that right now we are in the process
[00:17:36] of NCB.
[00:17:39] Then the perpetrator is
[00:17:41] caught. This NCB is, according to the government,
[00:17:45] terminated.
[00:17:48] is in the DPR draft for two reasons. First, if
[00:17:52] it's suspended, it's internal.
[00:17:56] So when he absconds again, as Prof Bayu
[00:17:59] said, we immediately reopen it. But
[00:18:03] if the government's version is terminated,
[00:18:06] there's a legal product. There must be
[00:18:10] a notification from the investigator to what?
[00:18:13] The prosecutor or to
[00:18:15] the court. It's difficult to reopen it.
[00:18:19] There must be a process that will be challenged and so on. So, in my opinion,
[00:18:23] the word "suspended" is appropriate because it's only
[00:18:27] internal, no need to do any
[00:18:31] notification to the suspect, to
[00:18:34] others, no need, because it's just for... for ee what
[00:18:38] investigation technicalities, you know. So,
[00:18:41] it's more practical, better, and what,
[00:18:45] what, yes, it doesn't
[00:18:48] require a complicated process. If the word
[00:18:52] "terminated" is used, it can definitely be challenged.
[00:18:55] "Hey, you already terminated it, you reopened it?" In a pre-trial
[00:18:58] hearing, etc., it will make it difficult for investigators, make it difficult for everyone,
[00:19:01] in my opinion. Thank
[00:19:03] you.
[00:19:13] Mr. Andang, thank you, leaders. Permission,
[00:19:17] if
[00:19:21] was proposed by the government, because
[00:19:23] when that process is ongoing in personam,
[00:19:27] then the person
[00:19:29] runs away, then NCB
[00:19:33] can be initiated. Then the person
[00:19:36] is caught.
[00:19:39] If they're caught again, they probably won't run away again. So maybe
[00:19:43] the NCB earlier is terminated like that. If
[00:19:46] suspended, it hangs.
[00:19:49] So finally, thank
[00:19:51] you.
[00:19:56] Again, excuse me, left, left. Mr. Jamil, regarding what
[00:20:00] was conveyed earlier, even though I tried
[00:20:03] to see it, eh in our notes...
[00:20:08] the state must continue to pursue the person, sir,
[00:20:11] yes, here, because for us, this must be
[00:20:15] maintained, yes. So
[00:20:18] this NCB, this NCB does not abolish yes
[00:20:22] the criminal liability of the perpetrator.
[00:20:26] So the state, in our view, still has to
[00:20:30] pursue, not just the assets. Thus,
[00:20:33] ee our brief view, chairman, thank
[00:20:36] you.
[00:20:43] Again. Permission,
[00:20:46] government. So, if we look at this draft, it's like this.
[00:20:50] In the event that the examination process for asset forfeiture
[00:20:53] as referred to in paragraph 2 has already
[00:20:57] begun and the suspect or defendant
[00:21:00] as referred to in Article 6 paragraph 1 letter a
[00:21:04] is caught, it means that when
[00:21:06] we are conducting the process, the perpetrator
[00:21:10] has absconded. So our process is
[00:21:14] NCB, not CB,
[00:21:17] right? Yes. When
[00:21:21] caught, then the process goes to CB.
[00:21:24] The NCB is, according to the government,
[00:21:27] terminated. According to us,
[00:21:30] suspended. Well, I agree, I
[00:21:33] agree with suspended earlier because it's only internal.
[00:21:36] If terminated,
[00:21:39] it must be notified to
[00:21:42] what? To the suspect, to
[00:21:45] the court, or to wherever, right?
[00:21:48] So when later
[00:21:51] he, for example, absconds or, not absconds, but dies,
[00:21:54] or he gets sick
[00:21:57] and can't, what,
[00:22:00] yes, permanently, NCB must
[00:22:03] continue. When NCB continues,
[00:22:07] the government has already terminated it.
[00:22:11] The word "terminated," termination has legal consequences
[00:22:14] that can be challenged by
[00:22:17] his family and so on, right? Well, if
[00:22:21] we suspend it internally only, then
[00:22:24] it can just be reopened. No need for a complicated
[00:22:28] process. That's my opinion. Thank
[00:22:30] you. Okay, yes, suspended,
[00:22:33] right?
[00:22:36] Mr. Edi OS, please try. Yes, so
[00:22:39] it's like this,
[00:22:42] sir. So indeed, when we held an internal meeting,
[00:22:48] as he said earlier, sir. So indeed, the prosecutor's office and the police
[00:22:51] said not to suspend it. If suspended, then there is no legal certainty,
[00:22:55] but it must be terminated. If he indeed absconds,
[00:22:58] then it can just be re-filed
[00:23:02] for the NCB process. Indeed, the terms "terminated" and
[00:23:05] "suspended" sound trivial, but this
[00:23:08] has a very, very significant impact related to the issue
[00:23:11] of expiration. If the term "suspended,"
[00:23:15] "Rusten," means that to continue the case,
[00:23:18] it only needs to continue from the previous
[00:23:21] expiration. But if terminated, the expiration
[00:23:24] is calculated anew. Ah, this is also so that the perpetrator, if he
[00:23:28] wants to abscond, he will also think, because he will be pursued
[00:23:31] no matter what, because the term "terminated" means "stuiting
[00:23:35] verjaring," what's it called, the expiration will be recalculated.
[00:23:39] But if suspended, the expiration continues to run. So,
[00:23:42] for example, if there is a civil dispute, sir, a civil dispute, it
[00:23:46] suspends what, the running of the expiration. But if the
[00:23:50] perpetrator absconds, it's not suspending but terminating.
[00:23:53] Ah, it's roughly like that, sir. Permission, ee
[00:23:57] government, professor. We are saying
[00:24:00] suspended and terminated. That has, has, has
[00:24:04] a connection with other things, you know. If
[00:24:07] terminated, immediately
[00:24:10] that seizure must also be lifted.
[00:24:13] The blocking must be revoked and
[00:24:16] so on, right? There's the word "terminated."
[00:24:20] Right? That has an impact. But if
[00:24:24] suspended, it's just suspended, but it doesn't involve
[00:24:28] other things, because other processes are ongoing.
[00:24:31] Well, even if it's NCB or
[00:24:35] CB, it's one process that
[00:24:39] we will try, try.
[00:24:41] Ah.
[00:24:46] paragraphs 4 and 5. Actually, the issue of expiration
[00:24:50] earlier is answered in paragraph 5. So in paragraph
[00:24:52] 4, in the event that the asset forfeiture process without a criminal
[00:24:56] judgment against the perpetrator of a crime is suspended, meaning
[00:24:59] the NCB earlier is suspended, then the prosecution process against the suspect/defendant as referred
[00:25:03] to in ethics is continued with, of course, the CB
[00:25:07] in personam. Well, paragraph 5
[00:25:10] answers the issue of expiration here. In the event that the judgment against
[00:25:14] the suspect or defendant referred to in paragraph 4 is an acquittal
[00:25:17] or discharge from all legal demands, then the examination process
[00:25:20] for asset forfeiture without a criminal judgment
[00:25:24] on assets in paragraph 3 is terminated. This means it's actually finished
[00:25:27] here, right? The expiration is finished
[00:26:45] This is from the public prosecutor, since this is already
[00:26:48] approaching, we will agree at 12 o'clock we will
[00:26:52] take a break for prayer first,
[00:26:54] yes.
[00:27:01] Yes, please.
[00:27:15] Alright, I will continue, Your Honor.
[00:27:17] To the witness, this is on
[00:27:21] the screen, I want to compare or
[00:27:24] contrast. This is a photo that you just saw,
[00:27:27] witness, that we presented to the
[00:27:30] presiding judge or in front of the
[00:27:33] witness room in the courtroom, and we will also compare
[00:27:37] from Dharmawan, it has been presented. The one
[00:27:41] on the
[00:27:43] side here, yes, this
[00:27:46] one first. Yes, that's right, this
[00:27:50] is your photo, witness. That's right,
[00:27:53] Your Honor. Next to you, who is that, witness?
[00:27:57] My future wife,
[00:28:09] ee, witness, I also took it quite a while
[00:28:12] ago. Sir. This was when
[00:28:16] you were in college at that time. Yes,
[00:28:19] Your Honor. Good. Is it true that this is your photo,
[00:28:22] witness? That's right, Your Honor. That's right.
[00:28:24] I'll continue.
[00:28:28] Is it true that this is also your photo, witness? That's right,
[00:28:32] Your Honor. Yes, at that time it was called your wedding
[00:28:35] photo. You know it was in 1986. Is that right, witness?
[00:28:38] You will get married.
[00:28:52] is also your photo, witness, right? Yes, my photo
[00:28:55] with my parents, Your Honor.
[00:28:59] Please show it again to Hijadi.
[00:29:32] explained that earlier
[00:29:35] you, Dian Sandi, had seen
[00:29:38] melihat
[00:29:41] on X or Twitter, correct? Yes.
[00:29:45] Correct. Correct. From where? Did you know? I don't know,
[00:29:48] Your Honor. You don't know, right?
[00:29:51] Alright, witness, eh, we also
[00:29:55] asked earlier about
[00:29:57] the book.
[00:30:00] You, witness, never gave
[00:30:03] eh to the defendant to conduct
[00:30:07] any test or research regarding your diploma,
[00:30:11] witness. Correct? Correct? Did not ask for permission, Your Honor. And
[00:30:14] you, witness, is it true that you never gave
[00:30:18] any copy in any form regarding your diploma, witness, to
[00:30:22] the defendant? No.
[00:30:24] Good.