Jusuf Hamka Wins, Hary Tanoe Ordered to Pay Fine of Rp 484 Billion Plus Interest

The Central Jakarta District Court has decided that Hary Tanoesoedibjo and PT MNC Asia Holding Tbk committed unlawful acts against PT Citra Marga Nusaphala Persada Tbk (CMNP), owned by toll road entrepreneur Jusuf Hamka.

In Civil Case Number 142/Pdt.G/2025/PN Jkt.Pst, the panel of judges partially granted CMNP’s claim.

Spokesperson for the Central Jakarta District Court, Sunoto, stated in an official release that Hary Tanoe and MNC Asia Holding must pay material damages of US$28 million or Rp 484 billion (at an exchange rate of Rp 17,300) with 6% interest per year from 9 May 2002 until fully paid.

The panel of judges also ordered Hary Tanoe and MNC Asia Holding to pay immaterial damages of Rp 50 billion jointly and severally, as well as court costs of Rp 5.02 million.

“The panel of judges is of the opinion that the transaction dated 12 May 1999 was substantively an exchange of securities as meant by Article 1541 of the Indonesian Civil Code, not a sale and purchase,” Sunoto wrote in the official release, quoted on Thursday (23/4/2026).

The panel of judges assessed that Hary Tanoe and MNC, as the parties who initiated, offered, and delivered the Negotiable Certificate of Deposit (NCD) to CMNP, should have known that the NCD did not comply with Bank Indonesia Circular Number 21/27/UPG dated 27 October 1988, as reinforced by the Supreme Court’s Review Decision Number 376 PK/Pdt/2008 dated 19 December 2008, which has final and binding legal force.

The panel of judges applied the piercing the corporate veil doctrine (a legal doctrine that pierces or lifts the corporate veil, so that legal liability which 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 defendants, considering that the acts in question were not merely actions of the company’s management, but reflected bad faith exploiting the corporate name.

In addition, the panel of judges explained that it rejected the claim for compound interest of 2% per month as it was deemed disproportionate, and set a reasonable interest rate of 6% per year as compensation for the time value of money.

Claims for coercive fines (dwangsom) and provisional execution (uitvoerbaar bij voorraad) were rejected in accordance with Supreme Court Jurisprudence Number 791 K/Sip/1972 and Supreme Court Circular Number 3 of 2000.

“This is a first-instance decision. Parties dissatisfied with this decision have the right to file an appeal to the DKI Jakarta High Court within 14 (fourteen) days from the date the decision is lawfully notified, in accordance with the applicable civil procedure rules,” said Sunoto.