Sidang Dugaan Pemalsuan Merek Sarung, Kuasa Hukum Serahkan Bukti Awal | Kabar Hari Ini tvOne

Summary

The trial concerning the counterfeit sarong brand continued at the Pekalongan District Court in Central Java. In this session, the defense presented an exception, with the defendant's legal representative, Muhammad Hanif, submitting initial evidence to the court. The evidence included a sales agreement for the sarong brand, a certificate of trademark from the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, and proof of the defendant's position as a director, not the CEO. The trial is set to continue next week, with the prosecutor responding to the defense's exception.

Takeaways

• 😀 The trial for the counterfeit trademark case regarding sarung (traditional Indonesian fabric) is being held at the Pekalongan District Court in Central Java.
• 😀 The trial is currently listening to the defendant's exception (Eksepsi), which is a legal argument to dismiss the case.
• 😀 The defense lawyer, Muhammad Hanif, has submitted initial evidence to the court.
• 😀 The initial evidence includes a sales agreement for the sarung brand, a certificate of the trademark from the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, and evidence of the defendant's position as a director (not the CEO).
• 😀 The defense argues that the defendant should not be held responsible for the case because they were not the CEO, which is the position that should have been accountable.
• 😀 The trial will continue next week with the prosecution's response to the defendant's exception.
• 😀 The initial evidence is considered important because the investigators had not previously disclosed it to the CPU, suggesting that crucial information had been withheld.
• 😀 The defense emphasizes that this undisclosed evidence may significantly impact the case, and they want the case to proceed transparently.
• 😀 The defense aims to ensure that the court understands the full picture, with the disclosed evidence showing the defense’s position from the beginning.
• 😀 The case highlights the issue of corporate responsibility and whether the individual defendants were properly accountable for the actions of their company.

Q & A

What was the main topic of the court session discussed in the script?

The court session focused on the case of brand counterfeit involving sarungs (traditional Indonesian textiles) in the Pekalongan District Court.

Who is the defendant's attorney in this case?

The defendant's attorney is Muhammad Hanif.

What initial evidence did the defense present in the court?

The defense presented initial evidence, including a sales agreement for the sarung brand, a certificate of brand registration from the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, and evidence of the defendant's position as Director, not as the CEO, which they argue should have been held accountable for the case.

Why is the initial evidence important in this case?

The initial evidence is crucial because it was not provided to the CPU by the investigators, suggesting that critical information was intentionally withheld, which could impact the fairness of the trial.

What is the role of the Pekalongan District Court in this case?

The Pekalongan District Court is responsible for conducting the trial and hearing the defense's presentation of evidence and the prosecution's response.

What is the next step in the legal process after this session?

The next step is a continuation of the trial, where the prosecution will provide a response to the defense's exception in the following week.

What issue is being raised by the defense regarding the handling of evidence?

The defense is raising concerns that crucial evidence was not shared with the CPU, suggesting that it was intentionally hidden by the investigators.

What type of document was presented to the court as part of the evidence?

The defense presented a sales agreement for the sarung brand, a brand certificate from the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, and evidence concerning the defendant’s position within the company.

How does the defense differentiate the defendant's role in the company?

The defense argues that the defendant was merely a Director and not the CEO, implying that the CEO should have been the one held responsible for the counterfeit case.

What does the defense want to achieve through presenting the initial evidence?

The defense aims to ensure that the trial proceeds fairly and transparently by highlighting the lack of disclosure of important evidence by the investigators.