Prosecutors botch charges, allowing bankers to walk free

Prosecutors botch charges, allowing bankers to walk free

Muninggar Sri Saraswati and Tertiany ZB Simanjuntak,
The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Charges against two former bankers were thrown out by the Central
Jakarta District Court on Friday because the prosecutors botched
the indictment.

State prosecutors, according to the panel of judges, failed to
use the correct article to charge Hashim S. Djojohadikusumo, the
former president commissioner of the now defunct Bank Industri,
and R. Oemarjoedi, the bank's former president director.

"The article could not be used in this case since the alleged
crime occurred before the law took effect. Therefore, the
indictment must be annulled in the name of justice," presiding
judge Rusdy As'ad told the hearing.

Both defendants were charged with violating Article 49
paragraph 2 c of Law No 7/1992 relating to legal lending limits.
It carries a maximum penalty of six years in jail.

Based on the legal lending limit, banks are only allowed to
provide credit to each of its subsidiary companies of no more
than 10 percent of the bank's capital.

However, based on Article 56, the law came into effect five
years after the government passed Law No. 7/1992 on March 25,
1992 while the alleged crime occurred between 1993 and 1994,
Rusdy said.

According to the indictment, both defendants authorized Bank
Industri to disburse Rp 2 billion on Nov. 7, 1993 following a
request from PT Harang Ganjang director Herry Wijaya. The bank
gave another Rp 2 billion on May 16, 1994, although Herry did not
request it. PT Harang is an affiliated company of the bank.

The indictment said that the central bank had warned Bank
Industri four times that it was exceeding its legal lending
limit. But as the bank ignored the warnings it resulted in the
bank's liquidation in November 1997, it said.

Hashim, a younger brother to former president Soeharto's
former son-in-law Prabowo Subianto, could not contain his
excitement following the decision.

Usually Hashim has refused to comment on the case but on
Friday he had no problems being interviewed by reporters.

"I am happy with the verdict, but I am not satisfied yet since
the decision did not mention anything that could have restored my
reputation," he told reporters.

Prosecutor Abdul Wahab Arief, who had replaced chief
prosecutor Andi Rachman Asbar, insisted that the prosecutors did
not use the wrong article in the indictment.

Andi is a chief prosecutor who once managed the current Hutomo
"Tommy" Mandala Putra case. However, he was replaced several
weeks ago by prosecutor Hasan Madani for unknown reasons.

Abdul said: "I think the judges have gone too far. They
shouldn't interpret the article themselves as they must ask for
the opinion of an expert witness in the hearing."

The Attorney General's Office said that the prosecutors had
presented a perfect case and criticized the judges decision.

"We question the decision because, in the similar case against
Bank Jakarta with the suspect Waldimin in 1992, the court decided
to accept the case and resume the trial," office spokesman Barman
Zahir said.

Barman said that Abdul would appeal to the Jakarta High Court.

Many had predicted earlier that the court would throw out the
six-page indictment against Hashim and Oemarjoedi due to a lack
of detail.

Apart from sparse detail, it contains several mistakes ranging
from incorrect spellings to the questionable articles the
defendants were charged with.

The fiasco is nothing new here. Many believe that the
instances are the result of incompetent prosecutors.

Others, however, say the wrong charges are laid on purpose to
help the accused walk free.

A court rejecting an indictment does not mean that a defendant
gets away with the alleged crimes.

If a court drops an indictment due to legal technicalities,
prosecutors can appeal to a higher court which has the
jurisdiction to annul the decision and order the hearing
continue.

Prosecutors can also lodge another indictment to replace the
previous one, if they insist on bringing the defendant back
before the court.

In 2000, the South Jakarta District Court dropped the
indictment of businessman Djoko S. Tjandra in the Bank Bali
scandal, due to a legal technicality.

The prosecutor, however, lodged another indictment against
him. His case is currently being heard at the Supreme Court.