Given the demands that are read Public Prosecutor (Prosecutor) in the trial continued at the Corruption Court, Makassar, Monday (01/08/2016), is considered far from the fact of the trial so far.
Legal Counsel Idris Syukur, Aliyas Ismail said his client claims to tend fetched because it ignores the fact of the trial and the testimony of witnesses presented.
"The demands were read out by the prosecutor did not correspond to the facts of the trial," said Ismail, who met the reading demands of post-trial at the Court of Makassar in a release to the pojoksulsel.com.
Ismail suspect prosecutor just to copy and paste from the dossier (BAP) while still diposes in the investigation team. "It was as if only the reconstruction of the dossier of information on BAP, not the facts revealed in court," he added.
In addition, Ismail confirms the fact of the trial there was no witness testimony stating Idris Syukur abuse their authority, both witnesses gave testimony and evidence during the trial last three months.
"Throughout the trial witness testimony and written evidence, no witnesses or evidence to prove the offense penyalalahgunaan authority," said Ismail.
Ismail also confirms the alleged car-related is the result of buying and selling. This is evidenced by the purchase receipt. Addition of Vehicle registration number (vehicle registration) and the Motor Vehicle Owners Books (reg) listed the name Ahmad Manda, Bosowa employees as the owner of the vehicle.
"Clearly the car ownership of puhak testimony of witnesses and police said that the car belonged to Ahmad yersebut Manda, BPKB, vehicle registration all in the name of Ahmad Manda and it was only buying and selling as evidenced by a receipt, it's not a car company," he said.
Just to note, in the hearing of the charges, the prosecutor charged the defendant with a penalty 4 years and 6 months. Moreover, Idris is also required to pay a fine of Rp260 million subsidiary six months.
Menutur prosecutor, Amiruddin, Regent of the two periods referred proven violating Article 12e AML and Article 3 of the Anti-Corruption Act."The defendant was convicted of violating Article 12e and Article 3," said prosecutor general guide (prosecutor), Amiruddin.
