"APARTMENT Slipi" "CASE OF ENGINEERING Harjadi Jahja" THE INDICTMENT THAT DOES NOT MEET THE CRIMINAL ELEMENT

Jakarta Intijaya, Harjadi Jahja as an advocate who holds a Master of law (S2) were very surprised and disappointed and marked with a large question of the charges against him as a suspect and his wife Wiekewati Jahja In Criminal Case No.: JKT 347/PID.B/2013/PN BAR. After a trial at West Jakarta District Court on Thursday (21/3) after a wait of at 11.00 to about 17.00 pm new trial will begin charges against himself and his wife, "I have to stick with the people of Indonesia and will work and live this very optimistic because , a variety of evidence and legal basis was not essential allegations / charges to me is my wife "he said bluntly in Intijaya.

According Harjadi a dilemma for the Supremacy of Law in Indonesia, due to a dispute between him and the chairman PPRSH Slipi apartment with the old board that is already not involved but they always disrupt the legitimate stewardship, "We as Management Board has reported some problems in the Police Metro Jaya, but until now still can not be processed due to one thing and another, the question is instead turning their reports in West Jakarta Police instead accepted and there are some important points that are not in the indictment and the prosecutors in my wife now " , he said. Upon Defendant I (Wiekewti J) and II (Harjadi J) researching and studying the Indictment the Prosecution, we hereby some reservations concerning the subject matter of the indictment are not eligible Materill as stipulated in the provisions of Article 143 paragraph 2. b Code of Criminal Procedure, because it does not spell out a careful, clear and complete information on the elements krimsus indicted.That the charges have put false information into an authentic certificate as provided for in Article 266 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code on Notarial Deed No. 29 dated 29 March 2008 by Notary THERESIA LUSIATI SITI RAHAYU SH and the official deed number 17 dated 30 April 2011 by Notary GRACE Supena Sundah SH in Jakarta as a base to put false information into another deed which deed number 25 dated 24 October 2011 by Notary GRACE SH Supena Sundah by Defendant I and Defendant II. Prosecutor indictment to Defendant I and Defendant II yet accurately, clearly and completely as stated in the file consists of Interrogation and evidence in the form of a letter and a DVD recording RULB that indictment does not meet the elements of a criminal offense. the board meeting and not meeting public.

Incorrect description into the deed number 25 dated October 24, 2011 concerning the appointment of a witness SANTOSO SITORUS SH as interim secretary's position as the charges (prosecutor) Public Prosecutor against Defendant II was alone as Chairman PPRSH Slipi apartment is exactly the opposite that the information actually related as stated in the file, where the first, the appointment of a witness SANTOSO SITORUS SH is in conformity with the provisions of Article 11 paragraph (4), jo provisions of Article 13 paragraph (1), in conjunction with article 18 paragraph 1 letter b Association, jo provisions Article 6, paragraph 1 letter g Bylaws, which states "The apartment PPRSH members Slipi others may be represented by a power of attorney lawful, select / selected to the Board, the legal status as owner of the apartment units, quit as a board with the power of revocation of the authorizing it represents "and the second, on page 22 of the Deed Extraordinary General Meeting (second) Slipi Apartments Tenant Association No. 20 dated October 15 2011tercatat by Notary NY GRACE SH Supena Sundah that:" I, the Notary explains that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of the Articles of Association, the Board Term is 3 (three) years, and in accordance with the provisions of Article 6, paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of the Bylaws, the Board of which there can not be dismissed for no apparent reason, even in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3 existing Board may appoint Between Time Management. "Certificate (covernote) number: 025/II/APT-SLIPI/2008 dated 25 February 2008 made by Notary LEOPRAYOGO SH SH., SPN in Jakarta and hear and see the proceedings of events that have been recorded in the DVD, which should be considered by the Prosecution materill common search for the truth because it is well known that the Article 44 paragraph b jo. Article 5, paragraph 2 of Law No. 11 OF 2008 ON INFORMATION AND ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS be Limitative has set ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS and INFORMATION ELECTRONIC as valid evidence in the investigation process, and examination of the criminal justice PROSECUTION.Incorrect description into the deed number 25 dated October 24, 2011 concerning the appointment of a witness SANTOSO SITORUS SH as interim secretary's position as Prosecutor indictment against Defendant II was alone as Chairman PPRSH Slipi apartment is exactly the opposite that the correct information related as contained in the case file, where the first, the appointment of a witness SANTOSO SITORUS SH is in conformity with the provisions of Article 11 paragraph (4), jo provisions of Article 13 paragraph (1), in conjunction with article 18 paragraph 1 letter b of the Articles of Association, in conjunction with article 6, paragraph 1 g Bylaws, which states "The apartment PPRSH members Slipi others may be represented by a power of attorney lawful, select / selected to the Board, the legal status as owner of the apartment units, quit as a board member with the revocation of the power of authorizing the represents "and the second, on page 22 of the Deed Extraordinary General Meeting (second) Slipi Apartments Tenant Association No. 20 dated October 15 2011tercatat by Notary NY GRACE SH Supena Sundah that:" I, the Notary explains that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 21 Articles of Association, the Board Term is 3 (three) years, and in accordance with the provisions of Article 6, paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of the Bylaws, the Board of which there can not be dismissed for no apparent reason, even in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3 of the Board that there can be Inter lifted Board Time. "Based on the description of the elements of the offenses described above, as well as the fact that there are facts associated with the case file that has not been seen fulfilled elements of before, so this third element that has not been seen to be fulfilled. Instead, this element will be visible if the element previously met are met, because the loss does not have to arise materill, but enough are that are potential or possibility.Thus the prosecutor charges the Defendant I and Defendant II, the "use it to cause harm" as referred to in Article 266 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code has not seen fulfilled.Yet seen the fulfillment element elements referred to in Article 266 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code, but the provisions of article 266 paragraph (2) requires that it must first be able to see the fulfillment of the elements entering false information into the elements of an authentic deed, in this case the inclusion of deed No. 29 dated 29 February 2008 made by Notary THERESIA LUSIATI SITI RAHAYU SH as a base / information to issue a notarial deed No. 17 dated 30 April 2011 made by GRACE Supena NY Sundah SH, it goes as a base / information to issue a deed number 25 dated 24 October 2011 and in the previous have not seen the deed number 29 dated 29 February 2008 and the deed number 25 dated October 24, 2011 is contained false information, then the provisions of Article 266 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Code can not be applied to the Defendant I and Defendant II."That in accordance with the principles adopted in the criminal law, so that a person can be convicted guilty of a crime then all the elements in an article that statutory provisions alleged to have been violated by an actor or dader"(Supreme Court Jurisprudence: Number 449.K/Pid/2011, dated May 17, 2001 in the magazine Varia Law Courts Year XVII No. 203 August 2002 page 4)That, because the elements of Article 266 paragraph (1) and (2) of the Criminal Code are all elements except one who has not been met, the prosecutor charges the Defendant I and II Tedakwa in applying article 266 paragraph (1) and (2), Article 55 jo paragraph (1) to-1 of the Criminal Code, jo Article 64 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code can not be applied.
1. Stated, the indictment prosecutor in Criminal Case on behalf of Defendant I WIEKEWATI T.JAHJA. Dipl.-Ing and Defendant II Dipl.-Ing Harjadi Jahja, SH., MH. materill ineligible as determined Criminal Code Article 143 paragraph 2.b2. Said the indictment is vague (obscuur libell) thus null and void.
3. Indictment reject prosecution in Criminal Case on behalf WIEKEWATI T.JAHJA. Dipl.-Ing and Dipl.-Ing Harjadi Jahja, SH., MH.. In other words Harjadi said, "The yes because just based on a couple of Deed to lead someone or Board PPRSH for Greening table?" He said, half asked and smiled, so Harjadi closing statements in accordance with the Exception to be filed / presented at the Advanced Session Monday (01/4) at the West Jakarta District Court (JMart)