A

ntigraft judges have said they were reluctant to apply the reverse burden of proof principle in trials as there was no clear regulation regarding its implementation.

During a discussion at the Supreme Court on Thursday, the judges said the legal principle was not clearly regulated in the 2010 Money Laundering Law or the 2001 Corruption Law and that a call for its implementation should come from prosecutors.

Justice Mohammad Askin argued that judges could not just order defendants to prove that their assets had been legally obtained while prosecutors had yet to prove the charges levelled against them. '€œIt'€™s almost impossible for judges to implement it without a request from prosecutors,'€ he told the discussion, which was attended by representatives from the Presidential Working Unit for Supervision and Management of Development (UKP4), the National Police and the Attorney General'€™s Office (AGO).

Prosecutors from the AGO and the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) have long refused to incorporate the legal principle in indictments, saying that it was the job the judges to do so.

They argued that the South Jakarta District Court had applied the principle when it tried former tax official Bahasyim Assifie, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for money laundering and corruption when he failed to prove that his Rp 66 billion (US$7.3 million) in assets were legally obtained.

The KPK has leveled money laundering charges against many corruption suspects following the enactment of the 2010 Money Laundering Law, which gives the agency the same authority as the police and the AGO to investigate and prosecute money laundering cases. Activists have said that with that power, the KPK should be more aggressive in its efforts to regain stolen state assets.

Justice Gayus Lumbuun, a former lawmaker at House of Representatives'€™ legal and human rights commission, said that the legal principle should not be used by prosecutors as it would only cover their inability to prove a defendant guilty of graft. He added that the legal mechanism may help the country fight corruption, but he doubted that it was in line with the principle of justice.

Justice Salman Luthan begged to differ, saying that corruption was an extraordinary case and that the idea of shifting the burden of proof from the prosecutors to the defendants was crucial to eradicating it.

UKP4'€™s legal expert and former Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Center (PPATK) chief Yunus Husein concurred with Salman, saying that the reverse burden of proof would be an effective tool in recovering more stolen state assets.

Supreme Court Criminal Chamber head Justice Artidjo Alkotsar, therefore, said that the Court might issue a regulation that would serve as a guideline for judges to implement the legal principle.