Hary Tanoeso and MNC Ordered to Pay Fine of Rp531 Billion to Jusuf Hamka
Businessman and founder of the Perindo Party, Bambang Hary Iswanto Tanoesoedibjo, alias Hary Tanoeso, has been ordered to pay a fine of Rp531 billion to the toll road company owned by Jusuf Hamka, PT Citra Marga Nusaphala Persada Tbk (CMNP).
This ruling is based on the decision in case number 142/Pdt.G/2025/PN Jkt.Pst, issued on Wednesday, 22 April 2026.
“The court orders the First Defendant [Hary Tanoeso] and the Second Defendant [PT MNC Asia Holding Tbk (formerly PT Bhakti Investama Tbk)] to jointly and severally pay material damages of US$28,000,000 plus 6 per cent interest per year from 9 May 2002 until fully paid,” states the operative part of the decision, as quoted from the official release by the Spokesperson of the Central Jakarta District Court, Sunoto, on Thursday (23/4).
The panel of judges examining and adjudicating this case was chaired by Fajar Kusuma Aji, with member judges Eryusman and Purwanto S. Abdullah. They were assisted by Substitute Registrar Min Setiadhi.
The plaintiff is PT CMNP, with the First Defendant Hary Tanoeso, Second Defendant PT MNC Asia Holding Tbk, Third Party First Defendant Tito Sulistio, and Third Party Second Defendant Teddy Kharsadi.
Sunoto explained that this case is a lawsuit for Tortious Acts (PMH) related to a 1999 securities transaction, namely the exchange of Medium Term Notes (MTN) and Bonds owned by the Plaintiff with 28 sheets of Negotiable Certificate of Deposit (NCD) issued by PT Bank Unibank Tbk, which later could not be cashed.
The following is an excerpt from the full decision in the case:
In the Preliminary Section: The panel of judges rejects the Plaintiff’s preliminary demands.
In the Exceptions: The panel of judges rejects all exceptions from the Defendants.
In the Main Case: The Panel of Judges grants the Plaintiff’s claim in part, with the main operative part as follows:
Declares that the First Defendant and Second Defendant have been proven to have committed a Tortious Act that caused loss to the Plaintiff;
Orders the First Defendant and Second Defendant to jointly and severally pay material damages of US$28,000,000 plus 6 per cent interest per year from 9 May 2002 until fully paid;
Orders the First Defendant and Second Defendant to jointly and severally pay immaterial damages of Rp50,000,000,000;
Orders the Third Party First Defendant to comply with and obey the decision;
Orders the First Defendant and Second Defendant to pay the court costs of Rp5,024,000;
Rejects the remainder of the Plaintiff’s claim.
Converted to rupiah, US$28,000,000 is equivalent to Rp481 billion. Thus, the total amount to be paid is approximately Rp531 billion.
Legal Considerations
The panel of judges, in essence, opines that the transaction dated 12 May 1999 is substantively an exchange of securities as meant by Article 1541 of the Indonesian Civil Code, not a sale and purchase.
The panel assesses that the Defendants, as the party initiating, offering, and delivering the NCD to the Plaintiff, should have known from the outset that the NCD did not comply with Bank Indonesia Circular Number 21/27/UPG dated 27 October 1988, as also emphasised in the Review of Supreme Court Decision (PK) Number 376 PK/Pdt/2008 dated 19 December 2008, which has final legal force.
The panel applies the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil (a legal doctrine that pierces or lifts the corporate veil), so that liability that should be limited to the company shifts to the personal assets of shareholders, directors, or commissioners as meant by Article 3 paragraph (2) of Law Number 40 of 2007 on Limited Liability Companies to the First Defendant, considering that the act in question is not merely a corporate management action, but reflects bad faith utilising the corporate name.
Regarding the claim for material damages with compound interest calculation of 2 per cent per month, the panel does not grant such calculation as it is deemed hypothetical and disproportionate, and sets a reasonable interest of 6 per cent per year as compensation for the time value of money.
Claims for coercive money (dwangsom) and claims for immediately enforceable decision (uitvoerbaar bij voorraad) are rejected in accordance with Supreme Court jurisprudence number 791 K/Sip/1972 and Supreme Court Circular (SEMA) Number 3 of 2000.
This is a first-instance decision. Parties dissatisfied with this decision have the right to file an appeal to the High Court (PT) of DKI Jakarta within 14 days from the lawful notification of the decision, in accordance with the applicable civil procedure law.
“The Central Jakarta District Court emphasises that this decision is an independent product of the Panel of Judges based on the facts of the trial, evidence submitted by the parties, witness and expert testimonies, and applicable laws and regulations,” said Sunoto.
Hary Tanoeso & MNC to Appeal
When confirmed separately, MNC Group’s Legal Counsel Chris Taufik stated that they will file an appeal, so the decision is not yet final.
“This is not final yet, we will appeal, we must. Why? Because this decision has many things to question, so the decision does not yet have final legal force,” said Chris when confirmed, on Thursday (23/4).
Chris questions the decision, as their side was only acting as an arranger in the sale and purchase of securities referred to by the Plaintiff as an exchange.
Moreover, continued Chris, the experts presented by MNC Group during the trial were not accommodated by the panel of judges in their legal considerations.
“We presented experts, not just one or two, many expert witnesses we presented and all were examined,” he said.
Chris views the lawsuit as misdirected. There are parties often mentioned in the trial, but not made defendants.
“How come the people mentioned in the claim are not sued,” said Chris.
He highlighted the press release from the Central Jakarta District Court which does not include the considerations.