Kaligis said this in a defense note against his client Achmad Fauzi, who was accused by the KPK.

Jakarta, Posinternational.com

Lawyer OC Kaligis stated that the prosecutor’s accusations were considered wrong in handling the corruption case of Head of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Detention Center, Ahmad Fauzi, which was being tried at the Central Jakarta District Court.

“There was no order or order from the defendant to collect money from the detainees, let alone collect money directly from the detainees,” said OC Kaligis in Jakarta, Wednesday (7/8/2024).

Kaligis said this in a defense note against his client Achmad Fauzi, who was accused by the KPK prosecutor of having received IDR 19 million from the detainees.

Ahmad Fauzi was accused along with other colleagues, namely Deden Rohendi, Hengki, Ristanta.

Eri Angga Permana, Sopian Hadi, Agung Nugroho and Ari Rahman Hakim, of committing corruption in asking for money from KPK detainees.

The defendants are KPK detention officers so they are subject to criminal penalties under letter e of Law No. 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Corruption Crimes as amended by Law No. 20 of 2001.

Kaligis said that the preparation of the indictment by the prosecutor was not in accordance with procedural law and contained defects or errors in person.

He said that the prosecutor’s entire description did not show any connection to the a quo criminal act against Ahmad Fauzi.

For example, in the indictment, he said that his client was appointed as Head of the Corruption Eradication Committee (KPK) on June 2 2022.

But the prosecutor stated that there was a meeting on May 22 2022 at the Kaleyo duck restaurant, Jakarta with his other co-defendants.

“This means that the defendant has not served as head of the KPK detention center and has no authority over his duties as head of the detention center.

This is what is called a mistake,” said the Law Professor at Manado State University (Sulut).

His party hopes that the Central Jakarta District Court Judge will acquit the defendant from the charges immediately after the interim decision is read out.

If the judge has a different opinion and asks for a fair decision because the defendant has never been convicted before and has small children and is the breadwinner of the family to earn a living.

When the defendant was imprisoned, his wife and three children were left at their parents’ house because while they were in detention they did not receive a salary, even their modest house which was paid in installments was also confiscated.

According to Kaligis, his party did not accept honorarium or free fees from defendant Ahmad Fauzi because he was motivated by the intention to uphold justice.

**** (adi)

Related Posts