Controversial verdicts issued in BLBI cases

Muninggar Sri Saraswati, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Verdicts have been handed down so far in eight cases involving the misuse of Bank Indonesia liquidity support (BLBI) funds with the perpetrators getting away scot-free in the eyes of many, and no sign of the return of the Rp 137 trillion (US$13.3 billion) in state funds that was embezzled.

In the latest case last week, the West Jakarta District Court acquitted the former director of the now-defunct South East Asia Bank (SEAB), Leo Andyanto, and sentenced two other directors, Handy Sunardio and Jemy Sutjiawan, to 10 months and eight months in jail respectively for graft involving Rp 158 billion in state funds.

Previously, the Central Jakarta District Court acquitted the president of the now-defunct Modern Bank, Samadikun Hartono, of graft charges involving Rp 1.69 trillion in BLBI funds.

The state suffered its first loss last year when the South Jakarta District Court exonerated Hendrawan Haryono, the former deputy director of the now defunct Bank Aspac, of corruption.

Hendrawan was instead found guilty of violating Article 49B of Law No. 7/1992 on banking, and was sentenced to one year in jail and ordered to pay a Rp 500 million fine, despite the fact that the bank caused Rp 583.4 billion in losses to the state.

The Central Jakarta District Court sentenced Hendra Rahardja from the now-defunct Bank BHS to life imprisonment, while Eko Edi Putranto and Sherny Kojongian from the same bank were given 20 years in jail each after being found guilty of misusing Rp 2.696 trillion in BLBI funds. The three of them were, however, tried in absentia.

Another guilty verdict was handed down to David Nusa Wijaya of the now-defunct Servitia Bank. The West Jakarta District Court sentenced him to one year in jail as he promised to repay the misappropriated Rp 1.27 trillion to the state.

David, who was not detained, was nowhere to be found two months ago, however, when prosecutors tried to execute the verdict.

From August 1997 to early 1999, the government provided liquidity support amounting to Rp 144.5 trillion to assist 48 commercial banks in coping with massive runs during the monetary crisis, but 95 percent of the money was eventually embezzled.

It is quite interesting to observe the way prosecutors have handled these cases, with lenient sentences being requested even though the former claimed the defendants were guilty of violating the anticorruption law, which carries a maximum life sentence.

In Samadikun's case, for example, prosecutors said in their indictment that Modern Bank had caused Rp 1.69 trillion in state losses, but Samadikun was only held responsible for causing Rp 169 billion in losses. And when they made their sentencing recommendation, the prosecutors said the defendant had only caused Rp 11.9 billion in state losses.

Pradjoto, a banking law expert, as well as Teten Masduki, the chairman of Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW), believed it was the corrupt judiciary that was causing the unsatisfactory settlement of the BLBI cases.

Pradjoto said the law enforcers should not use state policy regarding BLBI in a bid to save BLBI violators from justice.

"It's idiotic that prosecutors draw up weak indictments and request lenient sentences on the grounds that the defendants were only implementing state policy. They shouldn't be able to hide behind such stupid arguments," he remarked.

Worse, many judges have handed down controversial verdicts that seem to contradict the public's sense of justice.

Last month, ICW revealed in a report that corruption in the court system was systematic.

Teten condemned the government for the lack of political will to solve corruption cases, especially the BLBI cases.

"They have hardly paid any attention to these cases, which have involved trillions of rupiah of taxpayers' money," he said.

Teten called on the Attorney General's Office, the Supreme Court, and the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights to monitor the cases and to take resolute action against any judges or prosecutors found not to be doing their jobs.

He urged the Attorney General's Office and the Supreme Court to select relatively "clean and learned prosecutors and judges" to handle BLBI cases in the future.

In fact, Minister of Justice and Human Rights Yusril Ihza Mahendra promised last week to investigate the judges and prosecutors who handled the BLBI cases. But he claimed the ministry could not act alone, and asked both the Attorney General's Office and the Supreme Court to get involved in the problem.

There has yet to be any real action taken by the Supreme Court although Chief Justice Bagir Manan has promised to look into the BLBI cases. The Attorney General's Office, however, has refused to do so.

"We don't think it's necessary. Our prosecutors have never recommended the acquittal of the BLBI defendants. We don't want to accuse them. It's the judges who handed down the verdicts," spokesman Barman Zahir said recently.

Pradjoto suggested that the government appoint ad hoc prosecutors and judges, who would work until the government was able to reform the judiciary, to handle high profile corruption cases.

"This is an alarming situation. The government must reform the legal institutions now. Otherwise, the BLBI violators will walk free without paying back the money they owe to the state," he said.