Controversial verdicts issued in BLBI cases

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.