Asking for His Client to be Released, Zarof's Attorney Says Prosecutor's Charges Are Unclear and Vague

JAKARTA, KOMPAS – The legal team of the defendant Zarof Ricar has requested that their client be acquitted of all charges by the public prosecutor in the bribery case involving a judge related to the acquittal of Gregorius Ronald Tannur and the gratification of Rp 915 billion and 51 kilograms of gold. The charges against the former Supreme Court official are considered inaccurate, unclear, and vague because Zarof does not have the capacity as alleged, namely the ability to influence court decisions.

The statement was delivered by Zarof's legal advisory team alternately during the reading of the exception hearing at the Jakarta Corruption Court, Monday (17/2/2025). The hearing was attended by Zarof and also the public prosecutor. The session was presided over by Chief Judge Rosihan Juhriah Rangkuti, accompanied by Purwanto S Abdullah and Sigit Herman Binaji.

One of Zarof's legal advisors, Erick S Paat, stated that the public prosecutor did not clearly elaborate on the provision of Rp 5 billion to the cassation judge in Ronald Tannur's cassation decision. In fact, in the indictment letter, the prosecutor also could not specify if the money was promised by his client.

The indictment did not mention the defendant's capacity and ability to influence the decision in the case being tried by Judge Soesilo.

"The total amount of Rp 5 billion is something that was promised to the judge, whereas the public prosecutor in the indictment could not specify that the money was promised by the defendant to Judge Soesilo as the judge intended to influence the decision of the case he was adjudicating," said Erick.

The legal counsel also questioned Zarof's capacity, who was accused of being able to influence the cassation decision in Ronald Tannur's case. In fact, Zarof does not have such capacity. "In the indictment, it was not mentioned the capacity and ability of the defendant to influence the decision of the case adjudicated by Judge Soesilo," said Erick.

Therefore, Zarof's legal counsel considers that in both the first and second alternative charges, the description from the public prosecutor is unclear and vague. The legal counsel believes that the actions taken by their client should fall under the category of fraud or embezzlement.

Regarding the second charge by the public prosecutors, namely the defendant is threatened with criminal charges under Article 12 B in conjunction with Article 18 of Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Corruption Crimes as amended by Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning Amendments to Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Corruption Crimes, Zarof's legal counsel considers that this is also not in accordance with legal provisions.

According to the attorney, an act cannot be said to be a criminal act of corruption if there is no relationship of duty or work with the defendant. His client's actions do not reflect any alleged violation of bribery or gratification, but rather an ordinary crime.

He also assessed that the public prosecutor had made a mistake in determining the competence of the trial. Therefore, Zarof Ricar's case should have been tried in a general court, not a special court.

Furthermore, Zarof's attorney said that the public prosecutor also could not explain in his indictment which cases his client had committed gratification. The indictment also did not describe Zarof's actions in concrete terms, including the time and place of the incident.

"There is no concrete time description for influencing the case according to the second indictment, there is no clear action which case received intervention," said the attorney.

With the reasons for the exceptions or objection notes, the party requested the panel of judges who examined and decided the defendant's case to decide or determine the following matters; namely to declare that the defendant's objection and/or the legal advisor's exception can be accepted.

Another thing, stating the public prosecutor's indictment both in the first cumulative indictment, the first alternative and or the second and the second cumulative indictment cannot be accepted or at least stating the public prosecutor's indictment is null and void by law. In addition, releasing the defendant from detention, and charging the court costs to the state.

In this case, the public prosecutor charged Zarof with violating Article 6 paragraph (1) letter a or Article 5 paragraph (1) letter a in conjunction with Article 15 in conjunction with Article 18 of the Law on the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption and was charged with Article 12 B in conjunction with Article 18 of the Law on the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption.

After hearing the exception from Zarof's legal counsel, the public prosecutor will respond to the exception on Thursday (20/2/2024). Chief Justice Rosihan Juhriah Rangkuti will continue the trial on Thursday (20/2/2024) with the agenda of reading the response from the public prosecutor.