Not yet a month, two different cases of Marcella advocate Snares

Jakarta – Not even a month advocate Marcella Santoso has been charged twice as a bribery and satisfaction suspect. Marcella was charged in two different cases. The AFP summarized on Tuesday (4/22/2025) the Office of the Attorney General (ago) announced Marcella as a bribery suspect associated with the execution of the corporate defendant in the crude palm oil (CPO) or the raw material for cooking oil on April 12, 2025. “And related to the unseen decision, investigators found facts and evidence that MS and AR had committed so much bribery and or satisfaction to man, yes, it was allegedly as much as RP 60 billion,” the director of inquiry into the deputy attorney for the special crimes of the lawyer -General, Abdul Qohar. Browse to continue with the content except Marcella, also Ago to Ariyanto Bakri, as a bribery event. Marcella and Ari are advocates of the corporate defendants sentenced to loose or onslaught, namely from Permata Hijau Group, Wilmar Group and the MAS group season. While the recipient of his bribery Muhammad Arif Nuryanta was chairman of the South Jakarta District Court, in this case his capacity as deputy chairman of the Central Jakarta District Court at the Jakarta Corruption Court; As well as the young registrar at the North Jakarta District Court, Wahyu Gunawan. The youngest, the three panel of judges who sentenced the defendants to be named the corporate defendant, was also called the suspects. They were Judge Agam Syarif Baharudin, Judge Ali Muhtarom and Judge Djuyamto. The panel of judges in the Central Jakarta District Court who heard this case imposed a freelance sentence on the three corporate defendants on March 19, 2025. In his claims, the prosecutor demanded a replacement money of RP 937 billion from Permata Hijau Group, a replacement money to the Wilmar group of RP 11.8 trillion, and a replacement money from RP 4.8 trillion to the MAS group season. The investigation into the Ago found evidence of bribery behind the loose verdict. Marcella Santoso and Ariyanto allegedly gave a bribe of RP 60 billion to Muhammad Arif Nuryanta by Wahyu Gunawan. Marcella Santoso is believed to have violated Article 6 paragraph 1 letter A, Juncto Article 5 Paragraph 1, Juncto Article 13, Juncto Article 18 of the Corruption Act Juncto Article 55 Paragraph 1 to 1 of the Criminal Code. The case of the investigation into next week’s investigation was again named a suspect. This time, the case that Marcella decorated impeded the investigation into the examination of tin and sugar imports. Marcella has been charged with an advocate named Junaedi Saibih with the initials JS and also the director of Jaktv who reported Tian Bahtiar who received the initials TB. Abdul Qohar said Marcella Santoso is believed to have entered into evil agreements with Tian Bahtiar and Junaedi Saibih to interfere with the handling of the case. Abdul said Marcella and Junaedi gave Tian more RP 400m to Tian to convey the news about the prosecutor’s office. “While the process currently exists in court at a cost of RP. 478,500,000, paid to TB by the suspects of MS and JS, which is carried out in the following ways. Press hearing at the press limit at the public conference, “said Qohhar at the press hearing at the Public Conference Public Conference,” said on the press at the press trading at the persons who are on the public, “said Qohhar at the press hearing at the public conference at the public conference at the public relations. that Marcella and Junaedi also financed protests in an attempt to frustrate the investigation, prosecution and proof of trial matters. “The suspect MS and the suspected JS kept seminars, podcasts and talk shows in various online media and financed by directing negative narratives in the news to influence the proof of the case during the hearing, which was covered by the TB suspect at the time and stated it by Jak TV and official accounts. It was suspected that they violated Section 21 of the Act 31 of 1999 regarding the eradication of corruption as amended by the Act 20 of 2001 in collaboration with section 55 paragraph 1 to 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act.