“IF THE STATUS IS STILL A WITNESS AND THERE IS NO SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS OF AN INVESTIGATION TO BE STARTED, IT IS CONTRAST WITH THE LAW AND THE SEARCH, SEAL AND CONFISCATION CANNOT BE PERFORMED”
The Petitioner objected to the existence of 2 investigation warrants for him without prior notice and at the first inspection the Respondent had made forced efforts (search, sealing and confiscation), even though the Petitioner was still a witness (not a suspect) in the alleged banking crime and/or embezzlement.
The absence of notification or submission of a letter that an investigation has started is contrary to law, especially regarding the opportunity for the Petitioner as the Reported Party/Prospective Suspect to make adequate self-defense, against further forced efforts that will be experienced by the Petitioner.
In the a quo case there was a Semarang Commercial Court Decision stating that the Cooperative controlled by the Petitioner was declared in PKPU condition and had a Deed of Peace Agreement (homologation) which was corroborated by a Court Decision. Based on this, the case that had been resolved in a civil case should have been terminated in accordance with Article 10 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code, however, the Respondent continued to become a criminal case by making the Petitioner a suspect connected with the absence of notification of the commencement of the investigation to the Petitioner as the Reported/Prospective suspect.
Accepting the Petitioner’s Pretrial Application and Declaring the Determination of the Suspect against the Petitioner is invalid in all its relation (investigation/search/seizure/detention) that has been carried out by the Respondent.
–> Court Decision No. 14/Pid.Pra/2017/PN.Smg
Source:
Article Titled: “Sita Pailit vs Sita Pidana, Perdebatan Yang Tak Kunjung Usai”, written by: Aji Prasetyo, Hukumonline.com, 12 January 2023.
Best regards,
Fredrik J. Pinakunary