Attorney General Reveals How Benny Tjokro Cunningly Shielded Assets from Auction
Attorney General ST Burhanuddin has revealed the methods used by convicted corruption felon Benny Tjokrosaputro, involved in the PT Asuransi Jiwasraya and PT Asabri scandals, to protect his assets. Burhanuddin stated that Benny Tjokro was extremely cunning in safeguarding his properties by attaching high debt obligations to them, making it difficult for the state to seize and auction them off.
The revelation was made during the inauguration of the revitalised Adhyaksa Chambers building on Jalan Patra Kuningan XI/2, Setiabudi, South Jakarta. The building, now serving as the central mediation office for the Attorney General’s Office, was previously a house owned by Benny Tjokro that was confiscated by investigators.
“This building was actually a seized asset. It is from the Benny Tjokro case. We have actually tried to sell it, conducting several auctions, but they always failed,” Burhanuddin said in his remarks on Wednesday (24/6/2026).
He explained that the auction failures were not without reason. Benny Tjokro had allegedly prepared a strategy from the moment he committed the corruption to ensure his assets could not be easily transferred. “Benny Tjokro is very cunning because every building he owns has a mortgage value attached to it, making it difficult for us to sell them,” Burhanuddin revealed. “He committed corruption but with very thorough preparation, so he encumbered everything, and the encumbrances are not small.”
Burhanuddin provided an illustration of the asset value versus the deliberately placed debt burden. “If the selling price is around Rp 120 billion, the mortgage value is Rp 94 billion. So the case and his actions were already very structured,” he said.
Meanwhile, the Head of the Attorney General’s Asset Recovery Agency, Kuntadi, explained that most of Benny Tjokro’s assets were pledged to third parties, in this case banking institutions. “Yes, they were pledged. Previously, there were mortgage rights, so when they were seized, there were already guarantees from third parties. Banking parties,” Kuntadi stated.
Kuntadi stressed that his agency would not simply accept the status of these guarantees at face value. The Asset Recovery Agency will conduct an evaluation to determine whether the loans were genuine banking transactions or merely a tactic to shield assets from prosecutors. “We will examine whether these guarantees were purely for securing loans or just a way to dispose of or save assets. We will not just accept it blindly. We will evaluate,” he said.
Kuntadi explained that if the evaluation shows the bank acted in good faith and the guarantee procedure is legally valid, the state will respect it through a specific sharing scheme. “If it is valid, we must respect that. But if we evaluate it and find it was just an excuse, we will seize it,” Kuntadi asserted.