P

resident Joko '€œJokowi'€ Widodo issued on June 23 Government Regulation 43/2015 on the reporting parties in the prevention and eradication of money Laundering, to implement the Money Laundering Law.

The new regulation categorizes the legal profession as the reporting party that shall submit reports of suspicious financial transactions to the Financial Transaction Reporting and Analysis Centre (PPATK). This results in the advocate'€™s obligation to report to the PPATK regarding his client'€™s legal position, especially if the advocate'€™s client has the potential to be involved in a money laundering crime.

But under the globally recognized principle of lawyer-client relations, advocates should not violate confidentiality, unless on the permission or order of his client. An appointment of an advocate by the client is clearly due to the client'€™s trust in the advocate.

The rules of the International Bar Association (IBA) even mention that an advocate must not divulge a client'€™s secret unless instructed by the court, or allowed by the client. Therefore, the client'€™s confidentiality must be kept by an advocate when he provides legal services to his client even after he no longer performs his duties as a lawyer.

The IBA Anti-Money Laundering Forum also mentions that money laundering cases cannot include advocates as the reporting parties because it contravenes the principle of lawyer-client privilege. An advocate'€™s task is to defend the interests of the clients, not to investigate clients.

Whatever the circumstances and facts obtained by the advocate from his client in the handling of the interests of the client, nothing may be detrimental to the client except for the purpose of preventing the client from being caught up in a crime, including money laundering.

A recommendation of the Financial Action Task Force states that a member of the legal profession such as an advocate or a notary is not required to report certain allegations in the case of professional secrecy based on lawyer-client privilege. This lawyer-client privilege is solid ground to correct the provisions of Government Regulation No. 43/2015.

Even the Advocate Law mentions that an advocate must keep confidential everything that he knows or obtains from his client because of his professional relationship, unless otherwise provided by law.

Therefore, the exception from the rules of confidentiality of advocates cannot simply be regulated through a government regulation; they should be set out in detail in the Advocate Law for the sake of legal certainty for all parties, especially the legal profession.

However, the Advocate Law also contradicts the duties and functions of an advocate. It mentions advocates as law enforcement officials, which creates an obligation for an advocate to report crimes committed by his client, whereas the advocate'€™s task is to defend his client and the function to investigate is the duty of the police and prosecutors. An advocate is not part of the administration of justice, yet still respects the court in accordance with the responsibilities of his profession.

Article 1 of the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials clearly states that law enforcers have the power of police, namely the right to arrest and right to detain. It is clear that law enforcement officials'€™ functions are to conduct the examination, interrogation, arrest, detention, investigation, indictment and prosecution.

In short, the current Advocate Law needs to be amended so as not to complicate the position of an advocate. Hopefully such errors can be addressed, so that the government regulations support rather than restrict and hamper the independence of an advocate in carrying out his profession.
__________________________

The writer is a professor of the Faculty of Law at Pelita Harapan University and chairman of the Association of Indonesian Advocates (Peradin).