When “I Did Not Know” Must Be Proven: Legal Defence in Psychotropic Substance Cases

There is one sen­tence often heard when some­one is arrest­ed for car­ry­ing a bag, suit­case, or pack­age con­tain­ing psy­chotrop­ic sub­stances:

“I did not know.”

That state­ment may be true.

But in a psy­chotrop­ic sub­stance case, say­ing “I did not know” does not auto­mat­i­cal­ly make some­one free from legal risk.

The law will ask fur­ther ques­tions:

If you did not know, why was the item with you?
Who gave it to you?
What were you told about its con­tents?
Is there any chat, mes­sage, or oth­er proof?
Who arranged the trip?
Did you receive any mon­ey?
Did you explain from the begin­ning who gave you the item?

These ques­tions often shock the fam­i­ly. From the person’s point of view, he or she may feel that they were only help­ing to car­ry some­one else’s item. But from the law enforce­ment point of view, the item was found in that person’s pos­ses­sion or trav­el route.

This is the main prob­lem.

In a psy­chotrop­ic sub­stance case, lack of knowl­edge is not enough to be spo­ken. It must be explained and proven.

A Simple Favour That Becomes a Criminal Case

Imag­ine some­one trav­el­ling from abroad, for exam­ple from Milan to Hong Kong, with a tran­sit in Indone­sia.

Before depar­ture, an acquain­tance asks for help to car­ry a suit­case. The per­son is told that the suit­case con­tains clothes, per­son­al items, or fam­i­ly belong­ings. Because of trust, the per­son agrees to car­ry it. The suit­case is not opened. There is no feel­ing of com­mit­ting any crime. It feels like a sim­ple favour.

But dur­ing tran­sit, the suit­case is inspect­ed. Offi­cers find psy­chotrop­ic sub­stances inside.

In a moment, an ordi­nary trip becomes a seri­ous crim­i­nal mat­ter.

The per­son pan­ics and says:

“I did not know.”
“This is not my item.”
“I was only asked to car­ry it.”

As human beings, we can under­stand the pan­ic. But legal­ly, those words are not enough.

The author­i­ties will still inves­ti­gate. The police will exam­ine the case. The pros­e­cu­tor will review the case file. The court will lat­er assess whether the state­ment “I did not know” is rea­son­able, con­sis­tent, and sup­port­ed by evi­dence.

So the key ques­tion is not only:

“Did the per­son car­ry the item?”

The deep­er ques­tions are:

“Did the per­son know what was inside?”
“Was the per­son aware that he or she was car­ry­ing psy­chotrop­ic sub­stances?”
“Was the per­son part of a net­work?”
“Or was the per­son actu­al­ly used as a vic­tim?”

This dif­fer­ence is very impor­tant. Not every­one who car­ries a pro­hib­it­ed item is auto­mat­i­cal­ly a deal­er, traf­fick­er, or con­scious couri­er.

The First Problem: Innocent People Often Say the Wrong Thing When They Panic

At the ear­ly stage of ques­tion­ing, a vic­tim is often afraid, con­fused, and unaware of the legal effect of his or her own answers.

For exam­ple, an offi­cer may ask:

“Is this your suit­case?”

The per­son answers:

“Yes.”

But what the per­son real­ly means is that the suit­case was car­ried dur­ing the trip. It does not nec­es­sar­i­ly mean that the suit­case belongs to him or her. It may only be a suit­case entrust­ed by some­one else.

Or the offi­cer may ask:

“Did you know what was inside?”

The per­son answers:

“I was told it con­tained clothes.”

If this answer is not explained prop­er­ly, it may cre­ate a seri­ous risk. It may be read as if the per­son knew the con­tents of the suit­case. In fact, the per­son may only be repeat­ing what the sender or acquain­tance had said.

A clear­er answer would be:

“I car­ried the suit­case, but it was not mine. I received it from a per­son named X. I was only told that it con­tained clothes or per­son­al items. I was nev­er told, and I did not know, that it con­tained psy­chotrop­ic sub­stances.”

In a crim­i­nal case, the truth must be explained clear­ly. Not to cre­ate a false sto­ry, but to pre­vent the facts from being mis­un­der­stood.

Simple Evidence Can Be Very Important

Many fam­i­lies think that evi­dence in this kind of case must always be com­pli­cat­ed. That is not always true.

Impor­tant evi­dence is often already in the hands of the per­son involved or the fam­i­ly, such as:

What­sApp, Telegram, WeChat, Line, email, or social media con­ver­sa­tions with the per­son who gave the item;

phone call his­to­ry;

flight tick­et, board­ing pass, and bag­gage tag;

proof of tick­et pay­ment or mon­ey trans­fer;

hotel book­ing records;

pho­tos of the suit­case or item before depar­ture;

name and phone num­ber of the per­son who gave the item;

name and phone num­ber of the per­son who was sup­posed to receive the item at the des­ti­na­tion;

mes­sages stat­ing that the item con­tained clothes, med­i­cine, sup­ple­ments, gifts, doc­u­ments, or per­son­al belong­ings;

and state­ments from fam­i­ly mem­bers or friends who knew that the per­son was only car­ry­ing an entrust­ed item.

These may look sim­ple. But in a psy­chotrop­ic sub­stance case, sim­ple evi­dence may help explain that the per­son was told some­thing dif­fer­ent from the real con­tents of the item.

The most impor­tant thing is this: do not delete chats. Do not edit con­ver­sa­tions. Do not cre­ate fake evi­dence. Do not invent a new sto­ry.

In a crim­i­nal case, one small lie can dam­age many true facts that could actu­al­ly help the defence.

Do Not Wait Until Trial

A com­mon mis­take is that fam­i­lies only look for legal coun­sel after the case has gone too far, or when the case file is almost ready to be sub­mit­ted to court.

In psy­chotrop­ic sub­stance cas­es, the most seri­ous dam­age often hap­pens at the ear­ly stage.

The per­son may have signed a state­ment with­out ful­ly under­stand­ing it.
The per­son may have giv­en incom­plete answers.
The per­son may have failed to men­tion the per­son who gave the item.
The per­son may have failed to request an inter­preter when he or she did not under­stand the lan­guage of ques­tion­ing.
The fam­i­ly may have been too late to secure dig­i­tal evi­dence.
The per­son who gave the item may have dis­ap­peared.
The phone num­ber may no longer be active.
The social media account may have been closed.

That is why ear­ly legal assis­tance is very impor­tant.

Legal assis­tance is not meant to teach some­one to lie. It is not meant to cre­ate a sto­ry. It is not meant to avoid the law.

Legal assis­tance is need­ed so that a per­son who is tru­ly a vic­tim can explain the facts cor­rect­ly, clear­ly, con­sis­tent­ly, and with­out harm­ing his or her own legal posi­tion.

Closing: Find the Right Legal Counsel Immediately

In a psy­chotrop­ic sub­stance case, the sen­tence “I did not know” is impor­tant. But it must be devel­oped into a com­plete defence.

Lack of knowl­edge must be explained.
Lack of knowl­edge must be sup­port­ed by evi­dence.
Lack of knowl­edge must remain con­sis­tent from the begin­ning.
Lack of knowl­edge must be defend­ed with the right legal strat­e­gy.

If you, your fam­i­ly, or some­one close to you is fac­ing this kind of case, do not wait until it is too late. Pre­pare a clear chronol­o­gy. Secure all com­mu­ni­ca­tion records. Keep all trav­el doc­u­ments. And find the right legal coun­sel as ear­ly as pos­si­ble.

Advokat Irfan Dis­nizar dan Rekan can assist in assess­ing the legal posi­tion, prepar­ing the chronol­o­gy, review­ing the risks in ear­ly state­ments, devel­op­ing a defence strat­e­gy, and pro­vid­ing legal assis­tance from the inves­ti­ga­tion stage to tri­al.

In psy­chotrop­ic sub­stance cas­es, the ear­ly stage mat­ters.

The safest first steps are sim­ple:

stay calm, tell the truth, secure the evi­dence, and seek prop­er legal assis­tance imme­di­ate­ly.