Expert Witnesses in Bank NTT Corruption Trial: BUMN Losses Are Not State Losses

The trial for the criminal corruption case involving the purchase of Medium Term Notes (MTN) worth Rp50 billion, which implicates former President Director (Dirut) of PT Bank Pembangunan Daerah (BPD) Nusa Tenggara Timur (NTT), Hari Alexander Riwu Kaho alias Alex, has entered a new phase.

The continuation of the trial held at the Kupang Corruption Court (PN Tipikor Kupang) on Friday (24/4/2026) featured two expert witnesses: Mikhael Feka as a criminal law expert from the Faculty of Law at Widya Mandira Catholic University (Unwira) Kupang, and Agustinus Hadewata as a civil law expert.

The trial was presided over by Chief Judge I Nyoman Agus Hermawan along with two panel members, Raden Haris Prasetyo and Agustina Lamabelawa. Meanwhile, the defendant Alex Riwu Kaho was accompanied by his lawyers, George Nakmofa and others.

In his testimony, Agustinus stated that based on Article 4B of Law Number 16 of 2025 on State-Owned Enterprises (BUMN), both profits and losses of a BUMN are entirely the rights or liabilities of that BUMN. He noted that this does not constitute a state loss, as long as it is conducted in accordance with good corporate governance principles.

“I emphasise that the profits and losses of a BUMN are not state losses. This is clear in the law. It underscores the separation of BUMN assets from state finances, meaning that BUMN business losses are no longer automatically considered state losses or corruption,” Agustinus said in the courtroom on Friday.

According to him, in this case, the party responsible for errors in the business transaction is the analyst, not the division head. Furthermore, the principle in the business world is that every decision carries risk, but responsibility remains with the party conducting the analysis.

“So, no business, no risk. The analyst is responsible because there is a division of tasks and authority. If there is an analysis error, then the analyst is the one accountable,” Agustinus explained.

He elaborated on the role of the division head, which is more about providing mandates and making decisions based on the presented data. Therefore, if the provided data is incorrect, the primary responsibility still lies with the analyst.

Agustinus also highlighted the possibility of invalid data from the company side. According to him, if the analyst receives data that turns out to be untrue, the analyst is the first victim. The division head becomes the second victim by making decisions based on that data.

“If the company provides untrue data and it is deemed valid by the analyst, then the analyst is the victim. This is followed by the division head also becoming a victim because they rely on the analysis results,” Agustinus clarified.

Meanwhile, Mikhael Feka affirmed that an analysis error in an investment process does not automatically impose legal responsibility on the decision-making official. In the context of the alleged corruption case in the MTN investment by Bank NTT, the boundaries of each party’s tasks and authority must be carefully examined.

According to him, if the error occurs at the analyst level, legal accountability should be directed at the party conducting the analysis. Moreover, a person cannot be punished without the element of intent.

“An incorrect analysis by an analyst as per their duties means that the official making the decision is not automatically held legally accountable if the impact is outside the scope of their tasks and authority,” said Mikhael, who has been presented as a criminal law expert 556 times.

Additionally, Mikhael stated that the party providing false information in the analysis process must be held legally accountable, including the analyst who compiles the study.

“So in this context, the provider of false information must certainly be held legally accountable, and the analyst must also be held accountable,” Mikhael explained.

Thus, Mikhael did not rule out the involvement of policy-making officials. He emphasised that legal responsibility can also be imposed if the official is proven to have colluded with the analyst to cover up the issue.

“Policy-making officials can also be held accountable if they, together with the analyst, cover up the problem that occurred. If not, then the decision-making official is not involved,” Mikhael concluded.

To date, Mikhael is still being examined as an expert witness.

Previously reported, former President Director (Dirut) of Bank NTT, Hari Alexander Riwu Kaho, was designated as a suspect in the corruption of purchasing Medium Term Notes (MTN) or mid-term debt securities from PT Sunprima Nusantara. This purchase was financed by PT Bank Pembangunan Daerah (BPD) NTT in 2018.

“HARK, as the Head of the Treasury Division of PT BPD NTT in 2018. Today, we officially declare him a suspect in the alleged corruption case of the MTN purchase,” said the Head of the NTT Attorney’s Office, Roch Adi Wibowo, during a press conference at his office on Friday (12/12/2025).

Alex was designated as a suspect on Wednesday (9/12/2025) based on designation letter number B-5206/N.3/Fd.1/12/2025. He was then examined as a suspect and questioned with 37 questions on Friday (12/12/2025).

Previously, Roch stated that investigators from the Special Crimes Division (Tipidsus) of the NTT Attorney’s Office also designated four suspects in the case on Thursday (4/12/2025). The four are LD, DS, AI, and AE.

“Thus, today the handover of these four suspects along with evidence from the investigators to the public prosecutor was also carried out,” Roch explained.