Expert witness says lawsuit against Che Wei groundless

Tertiani ZB Simanjuntak and Zakki Hakim, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

An expert witness told the Central Jakarta District Court on Monday that the Rp 103 billion (US$11.59 million) libel charges filed by Bank Lippo against capital market analyst Lin Che Wei were groundless.

Sutan Remy Sjahdeini, a business law professor, told the court that Lin Che Wei did the right thing as an analyst by publicizing the abnormalities regarding Bank Lippo activities on the capital market.

Remy said nothing was improper about the use of the terms "cooking the books" or "robbing" in Lin Che Wei's articles, because they were commonly used terms among analysts.

"Lin Che Wei used common words, therefore there is no slandering here," he added.

"Moreover, not a single name was mentioned in his articles ... so, by law, should the bank as an institution object to the articles, then any lawsuits should be in the name of the board of directors and not of the commissioners."

He referred to Law No. 1/1995 on limited corporations.

Monday's hearing was the last to hear witnesses.

Presiding Judge Mohamad Saleh adjourned the hearing until May 29 to hear closing arguments from both the accused and the plaintiff's legal teams.

In February, Bank Lippo commissioner Rudi Toha Bachrie sued Lin Che Wei over the latter's analysis on the bank, accusing the analyst of slander.

Lin Che Wei's pieces, published in Kompas on February 14 and February 19, questioned a systematic drop of the bank's stock price and another significant drop of the foreclosed assets (AYDA) price that could lead to a great loss to the state.

The bank made certain decisions that some experts said were an effort from the old owners to buy back the shares at a discounted price so they could become a majority shareholder over the government.

The government injected bailout funds into the bank in 1999 and now owns a 59 percent stake in Bank Lippo.

Rudi, who is one of the bank's founders, filed the lawsuit, saying Che Wei's actions had damaged the commissioner's reputation and credibility.

Such actions, they said, had also caused a decrease in Lippo's share prices due to the articles and damaged Lippo's reputation with the government, investors, shareholders and other stakeholders as well the costs incurred in hiring lawyers for the case.