YOGYAKARTA- The reversed system for evidence in civil affairs as practised in several countries, the U.S., the UK, and some European countries, can be made source of reference for reversed evidence in returning assets that are obtained through corruption crimes in Indonesia. The regulation of reversed evidence and dossier arrangement should be contained in a law as an exception of other general evidence procedures bearing in mind that the nature and character of corruption as an extraordinary crime have international nuance in it.
The return of assets gained in corruption currently implemented in Indonesia is only through civil law by first proving the crime committed by the suspect/accused through verdicts that are final and binding, except if the suspect/accused is deceased, a civil lawsuit may then be filed,” said Prof. Dr. Edward Omar Sharif Hiariej, S.H., M.Hum. in his professorship inaugural speech at Senate Hall of Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM) on Monday (30/1).
According to Eddy, reversed evidence to return assets amassed in a corruption is not yet regulated clearly or in detail in Indonesia. In the context of Indonesian regulations, in the event of absolute reversed evidence, the suspect is charged with the duty to prove that the wealth he owns is not sourced from the crime stated in Law No 8 Year 2010 on Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering. Article 77 of a quo law states ”For the sake of investigation at a tribunal, the accused has the duty to prove that the wealth he owns is not sourced from a crime.” The law should have firmly regulated the consequence of reversed evidence done by the accused. It’s a pity that Article 77 juncto Article 78 of the Law does not regulate the procedures, at least it should regulate the consequence of the reversed evidence,’ said the man born in Ambon on 10 April 1973.
Eddy said the reversed evidence in returning assets sourced from corruption can be used through legal means, whether criminal or civil. Such a return without criminal lawsuit is implicitly included in Article 51 paragraph (1) UNCAC on reciprocal legal aid between participating countries with regard to the wealth they obtained, through or involved in a crime as stipulated by the UNCAC. “The return of assets coming from civil means through reversed evidence will not instantly violate the presumption of innocence or privileged against self-incrimination, although the crime of the accused does not have to be proven,” said the lecturer in criminal law in Faculty of Law UGM.
In his speech Eddy was certain that repressive acts against corruption crimes are not only through punishing the perpetrator, but also by returning the assets that have been corrupted. There are several conditions in returning such assets, which are the state’s political will, legal system, institutional cooperation and international cooperation.
Eddy further delivered some effects of corruption which sets the background for corruption crimes internationalisation. First, corruption is considered as damaging democracy. Second, corruption is damaging legal regulations..Third, corruption can disrupt sustainable development, Fourth, corruption can damage the market. Fifth, corruption can damage quality of life. Sixth, corruption is considered as abusing human rights. Therefore, proving is very crucial in resolving a legal matter. Proving is the core of a trial of a case,” Eddy said.