The continuation of the trial for alleged timber investment fraud and embezzlement at the Banjarmasin District Court was marked by the defense filing an objection (demurrer). The legal defense team for H. Didik Yudi Ernawan firmly requested the panel of judges to dismiss the Public Prosecutor's (JPU) indictment, arguing that the case falls purely within the realm of civil law, not criminal law.
During the hearing presided over by Chief Judge Cahyono Reza Adrianto, the defendant's legal counsel, Robert Hendra Sulu, explained that the legal relationship between his client and the complainant, Adek Dasfial Manra, stemmed from a business cooperation for timber shipping. The cooperation was carried out through PT Anugerah Ailantus Altissima, where the defendant served as director.
Robert explained that the business capital was submitted in stages with a commitment to profit-sharing, accompanied by collateral in the form of a property ownership certificate. Therefore, any issues arising from the refund of funds or the cashing of checks should be resolved through a breach of contract (default) lawsuit. He emphasized that forcing criminal law onto a business dispute contradicts the legal principle of ultimum remedium, which places criminal law as a last resort.
In addition to the civil nature of the case, the defense team deemed the prosecutor's indictment as inaccurate or vague (obscuur libel). The alternative charges compiled by the prosecutor were considered confusing because they mixed elements of fraud and embezzlement under Law Number 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code, which legally have vastly different evidentiary structures.
Furthermore, the defense counsel highlighted the legal status of the transaction. Given that most of the investment funds went into the limited liability company's (PT) account, legal liability should be directed at the corporation. Demanding personal criminal liability from the defendant is deemed inappropriate and ignores corporate law standards.
Previously, the prosecutor indicted Didik for causing losses of up to Rp670 million to the complainant through an investment that failed to yield returns, coupled with checks being rejected by the bank due to insufficient funds. In response to the indictment, the defendant's side is now requesting the judges to declare the indictment null and void and to release the defendant from custody.
