Liputan6.com, jakarta – The lawyer of the defendant Hasto Christiansto Ronnie Talapesses asked the judge’s college to cancel the evidence of the data recording file or the CDR brought by the State Prosecutor (JPU) of the corruption (KPK) commission, since its authenticity cannot be proven.
This was transferred during reading the defense or memorandum of Plade during the trial in the case of bribery in the interior (PAW) member of the Indonesian parliament Harun Masik and the case of the investigation.
“The CDR file should not be classified as evidence or evidence, since it cannot be proven by authenticity and reliability,” Ronnie said in the Central Court of Corruption of Jakarta, Thursday (10.10.2025).
The CDR itself is the data regarding the details of the transaction of calls, time or telecommunications that can read the location of a person based on the tower signal. In the previous trial, the prosecutor claimed that he knew that Maskan Maskika and Haso Christianto fled to the Higher Education area (PTIK), South Jakarta, during the operation “OTT) based on CDR data.
Ronnie said that, based on the facts of the trial, the CDR file, presented by the KPK prosecutor in the court, which went through an expert analysis, was considered unfinished. Data is considered risky for manipulation and are no longer genuine.
Including the prosecutor in his requirements, mentioned, the CDR data was not directly obtained by investigators from the operator, namely from freelance or Flashdisk Cruzer Blade 16 GB and Sandisk Cruzer Blade 64 GB.
“A noble group of judges, we never know that this outbreak is given to anyone and whether it can trust her,” he explained.
As a result of the authenticity of the dubious CDR file, Ronnie also asked the group of judges to revise the tool or evidence.
“This should be excluded and not considered by a colleague of judges,” Ronnie said.
In order not to forget, he also emphasized the facts of testing, which stated that the evidence of the CDR data was not through a digital judicial audit. This applies to the statement of experts on digital forensic experts who work as KPK researchers.
“The only one who has the right to declare a document has passed the digital forensic process is a digital expert, not a state prosecutor,” Ronnie emphasized.
