In the case of the Money Laundering Crime (TPPU) implicating the defendant, the head of the Al Zaytun Islamic Boarding School, the primary focus of law enforcement is indeed on activities related to the Indonesian Islamic Boarding School Foundation (YPI), not on alleged connections to the Indonesian Islamic State (NII). Based on the investigation findings and the public prosecutor's indictment, this TPPU case stems from the management of foundation funds allegedly misused by the defendant for personal interests, rather than to support NII’s ideology or operations.
Investigators from the Directorate of Special Economic Crimes (Dittipideksus) of the National Police Criminal Investigation Agency (Bareskrim Polri) designated the individual as a TPPU suspect in November 2023. The suspicion originated from an initial crime involving embezzlement and misuse of foundation funds. A key piece of evidence is the legal fact of a loan personally signed by the defendant but repaid using foundation funds. Additionally, money laundering patterns such as *structuring* (splitting transactions to avoid detection) and *mingling* (mixing illegal funds with legal ones) were identified, indicating efforts to conceal the origins of the money.
Although the defendant is frequently associated with NII in public narratives—particularly due to a 2002 Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) study suggesting ties between Al Zaytun and NII KW9—this TPPU case does not base its investigation on any connection to NII. The focus is on violations of the Foundation Law (Article 70 in conjunction with Article 5 of Law No. 28 of 2004), the TPPU Law (Articles 3, 4, or 5 in conjunction with Article 10 of Law No. 8 of 2010), and Article 372 of the Penal Code regarding embezzlement. Investigators have also blocked numerous accounts linked to the defendant and seized assets in the name of the defendant and their descendants, all of which are associated with the foundation’s activities, not other entities like NII.
Thus, this TPPU case is not directly related to NII but centers on the misuse of funds from the Indonesian Islamic Boarding School Foundation, which manages Al Zaytun.
For this reason, in my previous notes, I consistently emphasized that testimonies in this TPPU case are entirely unrelated to NII, and witnesses must be those who understand the issue, not merely elderly witnesses or a defendant who enjoys being called youthful. (I reviewed the recording of the witness testimony from April 9 yesterday.)
In the legal context, particularly in TPPU cases, testimony that is hearsay—"he said, she said" (qiila wa qoola)—generally lacks strong legal weight and is typically not considered valid evidence by judges. Under Indonesia’s criminal justice system, as outlined in the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), witnesses must provide statements based on what they directly saw, heard, or experienced (de auditu or de visu), not based on secondhand accounts.
For testimony to be deemed valid, it must:
1. Be Clear and Specific. Witnesses must explain event details, timing, location, and involved parties.
2. Be Relevant. The statement must directly relate to TPPU elements, such as the origin of assets, suspicious transactions, or concealment efforts.
3. Be Consistent. The testimony must not contradict other facts or evidence.
4. Be Supported by Other Evidence. Testimony is stronger when corroborated by documents, transaction records, or digital evidence.
If testimony is merely hearsay without a clear, verifiable basis, judges typically disregard it as it fails to meet the requirements for valid evidence. In practice, prosecutors or investigators prioritize witnesses with direct knowledge or supporting evidence, such as cooperating perpetrators (justice collaborators) or expert witnesses who can explain TPPU transaction patterns.
In TPPU cases, the burden of proof does not rely solely on testimony but on a series of mutually supporting pieces of evidence. Under Indonesian law, particularly Law No. 8 of 2010 on the Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering and the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), TPPU is a complex crime typically proven through a "follow the money" approach. This means material evidence like transaction documents, fund flows, and assets often serves as the primary key, not just witness statements.
Key points include:
1. Primary Evidence:
- Documents. Bank accounts, transfer receipts, suspicious financial transaction reports (e.g., from PPATK), or asset ownership documents.
- Electronic Evidence. Digital data such as emails, communication histories, or online banking transaction traces.
- Physical Assets. Property inconsistent with the perpetrator’s official income. Seizures have already been conducted by investigators.
2. Role of Witnesses:
- Witnesses are important for providing context or reinforcing other evidence, such as those directly involved in transactions or aware of fund origins. However, standalone testimony without supporting evidence tends to be weak.
- Expert witnesses (e.g., financial or forensic experts) are often used to analyze fund flows or money laundering patterns.
3. TPPU Proof System:
- TPPU does not require a prior criminal conviction (non-conviction based). This means that even if the predicate crime has not been proven in court, TPPU can still be prosecuted as long as there is sufficient evidence of money laundering activities.
- This approach makes transaction records and financial trails more critical than relying solely on witness accounts.
4. Practical Examples. In major TPPU cases in Indonesia, such as those involving initial crimes of authority misuse in foundations, investigators typically rely on PPATK reports, evidence of disproportionate asset ownership, and fund flow reconstructions, rather than just individual statements.
Thus, while witnesses can help build a narrative, TPPU relies more heavily on objective, traceable, and verifiable evidence.
5. In the context of this TPPU case under discussion, testimony must indeed be clear and specific to be legally valid. Witnesses are expected to provide factual, detailed, and unambiguous statements about events or transactions related to the alleged money laundering. This clarity is crucial to help investigators or judges understand the sequence of events, the origin of funds, and the involvement of specific parties.
Conclusion:
The question is whether the testimony of the witness present at yesterday’s hearing was sufficient for the panel of judges to consider.
In my view, it was good enough for someone who abandoned their educational efforts in 2011. At the very least, it generally allows the panel of judges to understand the problem’s structure that led to the TPPU charges.
Another matter arises if we carefully examine the dialogue between the defendant and the witness regarding ID cards (KTP). It can be concluded that, for anyone, NII was not the goal of their struggle but rather a tool to justify collecting money and human resources.
The defendant has often stated that the Indonesian Islamic State (NII) no longer exists, as they once asserted, "NII is finished." This statement is typically used to deny any connection to the movement, especially amid the controversy surrounding them and the Al Zaytun Islamic Boarding School. However, allegations that NII is still used as a tool to garner financial support persist from various parties, creating a contradictory narrative.
On the other hand, the defendant denies these accusations, claiming that Al Zaytun’s funds come from the foundation, public donations, and government school operational assistance (BOS)—not from NII activities. They also dismiss the money laundering or fund misuse allegations as illogical, arguing that BOS funds are too small to be corrupted.
However, the claim that NII was used to seek financial support cannot be entirely dismissed. Reports from former NII members and authorities’ investigations reveal suspicious fund flows, including from accounts linked to the defendant. For example, in 2011, police found evidence of fund transfers from NII Central Java administrators to the defendant, and in 2023, the entire hakkul yakin community believed most of their funds came through the NII Governor—who is this NII Governor? All of this is detailed in a civil lawsuit. This strengthens the suspicion that, despite the defendant’s claim that NII has disbanded, its remnants were still directly exploited to raise funds.
The defendant insists NII no longer exists and the accusations against them are baseless, while yesterday’s witness claimed that NII still exists and remains a tool for gathering financial support. Which is true? Without final legal evidence, this remains an open debate. What is clear is that Al Zaytun’s wealth and the hundreds of accounts frozen by PPATK indicate something complex behind its operations—whether purely tied to NII or not, it’s hard to confirm based solely on one party’s statements.
Thus, the dialogue between the witness and the defendant yesterday was an Abu Nawas-like exchange, which could be interpreted as a performance of hypocrisy.