Heru Andriyanto – In his defense on Monday at the South Jakarta District Court, former tax official, Gayus Tambunan, said that his 20-year sentence was recommended by "incompetent prosecutors" in a highly charged graft case prepared by "interest-driven police."
"Frankly speaking, I taught (police) investigators about tax issues because their knowledge in the area was zero," Gayus told the court as he described the bribery investigation against him by the police's independent team.
"But then they acted as if they were the smartest, especially prosecutors who demanded 20 years for me," Gayus said as the court audience burst into laughter.
He alleged that his case had been largely modified and fabricated to keep top police officers and prosecutors from criminal charges, despite the "bright facts" of their role in his first controversial trial in Tangerang that ended in an acquittal.
He singled out officers Raja Erisman, Edmon Ilyas, Pambudi Pamungkas and Mardiani who remained free despite having intervened in his original case through the manipulation of dossiers, the coercion of witnesses and changing the status of a fellow suspect to that of a witness.
Among the prosecutors, Gayus singled out Cirus Sinaga, Poltak Manulang, Fadil Regan and Kamal Sofyan for bringing his case to the general crimes unit of the Attorney General's Office, when he claimed the case should have gone to the special crimes unit.
The prosecutors added the embezzlement charge so that they could handle his case, said Gayus.
He also questioned why he was charged with the mishandling of a state refund to a corporate tax payer, PT Surya Alam Tunggal, while his first trial in Tangerang and the ongoing one in South Jakarta had nothing to do with the company.
Moreover, he complained that the legal proceedings targeted himself and SAT and missed the opportunity to launch a major probe into the tax directorate.
"I am wondering why police didn't continue their probe to the tax directorate? Is it considered as clean?" he asked.
"If I am found guilty based on evidence and facts, I can accept punishment. If there is no evidence against me, I demand the court to acquit me," he said. "I am not a good person, I must admit, but I am not a criminal either."