Former BKPM Official of Nearly 30 Years Highlighted in PT Genba Multi Mineral Ownership

JAKARTA – The change in ownership of PT Genba Multi Mineral has come under scrutiny. A number of state institutions have been asked to trace the mining company’s transactions, from the source of acquisition funds and ownership structure to the parties serving as the beneficial owners.

The name of Achmad Kurniadi appears in the document forming the basis of the examination request. Achmad is said to have had a career at the Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM) spanning almost three decades.

The document also requests an examination of Achmad Kurniadi’s assets from the time he held office until after his retirement. The tracing is deemed necessary to assess whether his wealth profile corresponds with the economic interests linked to the company’s ownership after his tenure ended.

However, the document does not conclude that Achmad Kurniadi committed any legal violations or conflicts of interest.

Change in Ownership of PT Genba Multi Mineral

One of the transactions under scrutiny is the change in ownership of PT Sinar Fajar Investasi and approximately 51 per cent of shares in PT Genba Multi Mineral.

The examination request does not stop at administratively recorded ownership data. The transaction value and the source of its financing have also been asked to be traced.

The tracing can be carried out against proof of payment, capital deposits, loans, and the parties that provided funds in the acquisition transaction.

Questions about the source of funds are important because a company’s ownership structure does not always reflect the parties who genuinely control it or enjoy its economic benefits.

The document therefore requests tracing of the beneficial ownership of PT Sinar Fajar Investasi when the transaction took place in 2018.

Ahmad Kurniadi’s LHKPN Asked to Be Traced

The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has been asked to clarify the State Officials’ Wealth Report (LHKPN) of Achmad Kurniadi.

The clarification is proposed by comparing wealth data from the period when Achmad was still in office with his situation after entering retirement. The data can then be linked to changes in economic interests that emerged after his tenure ended.

The request does not in itself indicate any discrepancy in the LHKPN. Verification is needed to ensure that all assets and economic interests have been reported in accordance with the rules.

The tracing is also directed at the source of wealth of the shareholders of PT Sinar Fajar Investasi and the parties who genuinely control the company.

To date, based on available documents, no conclusion has been reached regarding who the true beneficial owner of the company is.

Potential Conflict of Interest

Achmad’s career history at BKPM is also part of what has been asked to be examined.

The document requests tracing of a possible link between the authority he once held while working at BKPM and the investment, ownership, or licensing process of PT Genba Multi Mineral after he left office.

The examination is also expected to establish whether the company or its previous shareholders ever received services, approvals, or investment facilities from BKPM during the period when the relevant official still held authority.

Nevertheless, the examination request is not proof that a conflict of interest ever occurred.

The temporal relationship between public office and business activity, if found, still needs to be tested through transaction documents, the authority of the position, and the regulations in force at the time of the events.

History of PT Genba Multi Mineral’s IUP

Besides the ownership aspect, the mining licence history of PT Genba Multi Mineral has been asked to be audited by the Directorate General of Mineral and Coal at the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources.

The audit covers, among other things, the issuance of licences, changes or extensions of the Mining Business Licence (IUP), mining activities, changes in shareholders, and government approvals related to the company.

The examination is expected to answer whether the ownership change and the company’s licensing journey took place in accordance with the rules.

Thus, the examination targets not only who owns the company, but also how the company obtained and maintained the right to conduct mining activities.

Source of Acquisition Funds Is Key

The source of acquisition funds is one of the key points in the tracing request.

If there are discrepancies between the transaction value, the financial capacity of the acquiring party, and the available wealth data, law enforcement can trace the origin of the funds according to their authority.

The tracing can also clarify whether the funds came from own capital, loans, other investors, or other financing sources.

With this approach, the examination is expected to go beyond the names listed in company documents. The more fundamental questions are who provided the funds, who controls the decisions, and who obtains the economic benefits from the transaction.

KPK to Ministry of Energy Asked to Examine

The document requests several institutions to conduct examinations according to their authority. These include the KPK, the Attorney General’s Office, the National Police’s Criminal Investigation Department (Bareskrim), and the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources through the Directorate General of Mineral and Coal.

The KPK is asked to trace the wealth aspect and beneficial ownership. Other law enforcement agencies are asked to look into possible legal issues in the transaction, while the Directorate General of Mineral and Coal is directed to examine the mining licensing aspect.

This separation of authority is important so that allegations or questions about the ownership of PT Genba Multi Mineral can be tested through data and documents, not merely on the basis of the recorded ownership structure.

No Ruling on Violations Yet

As of the material examined for this report, there is no ruling or official conclusion stating that a criminal act, conflict of interest, or legal violation occurred in the ownership of PT Genba Multi Mineral.

The requests contained in the document remain at the stage of proposed examinations, audits, and clarifications.

The results of examinations by the authorised institutions will later form the basis for determining whether the acquisition transaction, source of funds, ownership structure, LHKPN, and the company’s mining licences comply with the rules.

Transparency of the examination results is also important to answer public questions about the ownership of PT Genba Multi Mineral. With verified data, speculation about the company can be separated from the actual legal facts.