Rachel Vennya along with her husband Salim Nauderer and the manager Maulida Khairunnisa have been sentenced to 4 months at the Tangerang District Court, after escaping while undergoing quarantine from the Wisma Atlet RSDC. Berita Terkini
However, the panel of judges in their decision said the convicts did not need to serve the sentence with certain conditions. If during the probationary period of 8 months the convict commits a crime, the judge can give another decision. Berita politik
In addition to the issue of unnecessary punishment, the polemic in the Rachel Vennya case also emerged after she admitted to giving Rp 40 million to the task force. The money was given through Ovelina Pratiwi who is an honorary employee at the House of Representatives (DPR). Rachel said Ovelina asked for money so the Task Force could release Rachel from quarantine.
However, despite clearly giving some money to smooth his actions, the police did not charge Rachel with the bribery law. Director of General Crimes at Polda Metro Jaya Kombes Tubagus Ade Hidayat argued that Ovelina who received the money from Rachel was neither a state official nor a Civil Servant (PNS). Is that right?
Former Spokesman for the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Febri Diansyah said that although Ovelina Pratiwi’s status is not a Civil Servant (PNS), Ovelina can actually be charged with Article 1 number 2 of Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning eradicating corruption. This is because a person who receives a salary, wage or similar name from the state finances even though a contract can still be included in the category in that Article.
The regulation states that civil servants include civil servants as referred to in the Law on Personnel; civil servants as referred to in the Criminal Code; people who receive salaries or wages from state or regional finances; a person who receives salary or wages from a corporation that receives assistance from state or regional finance; or people who receive salaries or wages from other corporations that use capital or facilities from the state or society.
“Simply put, the Hoge Raad (HR) decision emphasizes the circumstances of whether a person is appointed to carry out some state duties, and is not related to rank. Even the 1925 HR decision emphasized that a private person who carries out some of the duties of the regional government is also a civil servant,” said Febri as quoted from his twitter account on Wednesday (15/12).
A criminal law expert from Trisakti University, Abdul Fickar Hadjar, said it was possible that the police did not incorporate the bribery clause in Rachel’s verdict because the one who was given the money was not an authorized official at the airport. According to Abdul, the recipient of the money who does not have a determining position is only referred to as a gift. Berita hari ini
“Moreover, only DPR protocol officers who are not related to airport traffic,” said Abdul to Katadata on Wednesday (15/12).
A different opinion, a criminal law observer from the Indonesian Islamic University (UII), Muzakir said that Ovelina could be charged with Article 55 or 56 of the Criminal Code while Rachel could be charged with Article 5 of the Corruption Eradication Law.
Article 55 (1) of the Criminal Code states that the perpetrators of criminal acts are those who commit, who order to do, and who participate in committing the act; those who, by giving or promising something by abusing their power or dignity, by force, threat or misdirection, or by providing opportunities, means or information, intentionally encourage others to take action.
Article 55 (2) states that with respect to the proponent, only acts that are intentionally recommended are taken into account, along with their consequences.
Meanwhile, Article 56 states that as assistants to crimes, those who intentionally provide assistance when the crime is committed; those who deliberately provide opportunities, means or information to commit crimes. Vitamin dan Suplemen
Meanwhile, Rachel’s entanglement in Article 5 paragraph 1 letter a reads that the perpetrator is sentenced to a minimum imprisonment of 1 (one) year and a maximum of 5 (five) years and or a minimum fine of Rp. 50,000,000.00 (fifty million rupiahs). ) and a maximum of Rp. 250,000,000.00 (two hundred and fifty million rupiah) for each person who gives or promises something to a civil servant or state administrator with the intention that the civil servant or state administrator does or does not do something in his position, which is contrary to with his obligations.
Meanwhile, Article 5 paragraph 1 letter b of the perpetrator is a person who gives something to a civil servant or state administrator because or is related to something that is contrary to obligations, done or not done in his position.