JAKARTA, IFN -- Investigators Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Sugiyarto is presented as a fact witness in the trial continued on suspects pretrial Suryadharma Ali said that several KPK investigators have competence as a financial auditor.
"Investigators anyone have any knowledge as auditor, the task to calculate the potential losses to the state due to corruption," he said while testifying at the South Jakarta District Court on Monday.
But he did not answer when asked about the value of state losses caused over 2010-2013 Hajj corruption case involving the implementation of the former Minister of Religious name it.
"If it had entered the realm of the investigation," he said.
Agree with Sugiyarto, members of the Legal Bureau of the Commission Nur Chusniah Commission explained that the employee is appointed based on their expertise, including the members of the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) which was appointed as investigators.
"The expert auditor will use its function as auditors to analyze the evidence in the form of a receipt or account numbers to calculate the potential losses to the state," he said after undergoing a session led by the Single Judge that Hadiati Tati.
However, the Commission will continue to appoint an independent auditor to strengthen the evidence that was found to be brought to prosecution.
Previous attorney SDA, Humphrey Djemat, stating that the alleged state losses due to the implementation of the Hajj corruption case on his client's alleged should be calculated by an independent auditor, not by KPK investigators.
"Should (audit) carried out by the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK), if counted themselves it means there is a conflict of interest that is prone to abuse, especially in the Commission's own supervision is not carried out accurately," he said after undergoing a second hearing pretrial SDA in Jakarta District Court South on Wednesday.
Opinion was supported by the criminal law expert testimony Jakarta Muhammadiyah University Chairul Huda is presented as an expert witness on the part of the SDA.
According Chairul, only limited authority to investigators looking into the events that basic criminal offense and seek and collect evidence, not make evidence.
"If (the investigator) to self-harm the country's name made the evidence, it obviously can not and there is no basis (legal) authority," he said.
Suryadharma Ali who by the Commission as a suspect organization of the Hajj corruption case in the period 2012-2013 the Ministry of Religious Affairs to apply for pre-trial judge to declare the start of the investigation warrant (sprindik) Sprin.Dik number-27/01/05/2014 and Sprin.Dik-27A / 01/12/2014 is not valid and is not based on law.
Besides, he also pleaded declared invalid determination of the suspect, the investigation process, and further actions undertaken the Commission related to the investigation.
In the suit material, Suryadharma questioning authority of the Commission in dealing with corruption in accordance with Article 11, paragraph a Law Commission.
SDA also requires the Commission to pay compensation amounting to Rp1 trillion for establishing himself as a suspect who caused the loss.
Legal counsel argued, the Commission does not qualify Suryadharma case because the state has not found a loss of at least 1 billion of cases SDA.
In addition, the power law also considers the implementation of the Hajj corruption case in 2010-2013 was not a concern of society.
"Investigators anyone have any knowledge as auditor, the task to calculate the potential losses to the state due to corruption," he said while testifying at the South Jakarta District Court on Monday.
But he did not answer when asked about the value of state losses caused over 2010-2013 Hajj corruption case involving the implementation of the former Minister of Religious name it.
"If it had entered the realm of the investigation," he said.
Agree with Sugiyarto, members of the Legal Bureau of the Commission Nur Chusniah Commission explained that the employee is appointed based on their expertise, including the members of the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) which was appointed as investigators.
"The expert auditor will use its function as auditors to analyze the evidence in the form of a receipt or account numbers to calculate the potential losses to the state," he said after undergoing a session led by the Single Judge that Hadiati Tati.
However, the Commission will continue to appoint an independent auditor to strengthen the evidence that was found to be brought to prosecution.
Previous attorney SDA, Humphrey Djemat, stating that the alleged state losses due to the implementation of the Hajj corruption case on his client's alleged should be calculated by an independent auditor, not by KPK investigators.
"Should (audit) carried out by the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK), if counted themselves it means there is a conflict of interest that is prone to abuse, especially in the Commission's own supervision is not carried out accurately," he said after undergoing a second hearing pretrial SDA in Jakarta District Court South on Wednesday.
Opinion was supported by the criminal law expert testimony Jakarta Muhammadiyah University Chairul Huda is presented as an expert witness on the part of the SDA.
According Chairul, only limited authority to investigators looking into the events that basic criminal offense and seek and collect evidence, not make evidence.
"If (the investigator) to self-harm the country's name made the evidence, it obviously can not and there is no basis (legal) authority," he said.
Suryadharma Ali who by the Commission as a suspect organization of the Hajj corruption case in the period 2012-2013 the Ministry of Religious Affairs to apply for pre-trial judge to declare the start of the investigation warrant (sprindik) Sprin.Dik number-27/01/05/2014 and Sprin.Dik-27A / 01/12/2014 is not valid and is not based on law.
Besides, he also pleaded declared invalid determination of the suspect, the investigation process, and further actions undertaken the Commission related to the investigation.
In the suit material, Suryadharma questioning authority of the Commission in dealing with corruption in accordance with Article 11, paragraph a Law Commission.
SDA also requires the Commission to pay compensation amounting to Rp1 trillion for establishing himself as a suspect who caused the loss.
Legal counsel argued, the Commission does not qualify Suryadharma case because the state has not found a loss of at least 1 billion of cases SDA.
In addition, the power law also considers the implementation of the Hajj corruption case in 2010-2013 was not a concern of society.
Comments
Post a Comment