J

ustices demanded that former chief justice and graft convict Akil Mochtar on Friday provide a stronger argument on constitutional losses caused by the 2010 Money Laundering Law that he is petitioning at the Constitutional Court (MK).

Akil is challenging nine articles of the law, including those related to the KPK'€™s authority to prosecute money-laundering cases, the reverse burden of proof and predicate crimes and assets, arguing that those provisions were against the Constitution and had created legal uncertainty.

During the first hearing on Friday, three justices '€” Wahiduddin Adams, Aswanto and Muhammad Alim '€” told Akil, through his lawyer Adardam Achyar, to improve the petition by providing more of an argument on Akil'€™s potential constitutional losses caused by the law.

'€œJust focus on where the law has caused the constitutional losses,'€ said Wahiduddin.

Adardam told the bench on Friday that the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) had no authority to prosecute such cases because the law did not specify a prosecution role for the antigraft body, but merely its role to investigate cases, saying that the article created legal uncertainty.

'€œThe article does not specify explicitly who the prosecutors are; whether only those under the
Attorney General'€™s Office or including KPK prosecutors. Therefore, the KPK does not have such authority. However, such vagueness results in multiple interpretations,'€ Adardam said.

In his petition, Akil also demanded the court rule that predicate crimes should be first proven before investigators building money-laundering cases seized assets, amid the antigraft body'€™s ongoing appeal against the Jakarta Corruption Court ruling that ordered the KPK to return Akil'€™s multibillion rupiah assets.

'€œHow can you tell it is a money-laundering crime if [the KPK] is not eligible to prove such a crime? The money may not always come from criminal activities,'€ Adardam said.

Akil is also seeking to annul two articles on shifting the burden of proof, arguing that those have also created legal uncertainty and were against the Constitution, particularly the principles of legal state, equality before the law and the right to the protection of a person'€™s private life, family, honor, dignity and property and to protection against threats.

'€œThose provisions are too broad. Our client experienced having to justify all of his assets, instead of only those assets related to the [alleged] crime,'€ Adardam added.

Akil'€™s petition is centered on similar issues previously debated by judges, legal experts and lawyers since the enactment of the law in 2010, while some argue that confiscating the assets of graft convicts, as well as money-laundering actors, would have a deterrent effect.

Criminal law expert Akhiar Salmi said the KPK had the authority to oversee money-laundering cases, since separating those from corruption charges would not be efficient.

'€œDespite the fact that some are still debating it, I'€™d say the KPK has the authority to prosecute money-laundering cases. First, we should refer to the legal principle of utility. Handing over cases to the prosecutor'€™s office would not be efficient, since the KPK is the one investigating the case. The KPK has both investigators and prosecutors,'€ he said. '€œMoreover, the KPK has the precedent in hearing such cases.'€

Akil, who was recently sentenced to life imprisonment for graft and money laundering, however, did not show up for the first hearing on the law, which was promulgated by Justice Patrialis Akbar in October 2010 when he was the law and human rights minister.