Reasons for Hary Tanoesoedibjo's Order to Pay Rp 531 Billion to Jusuf Hamka's Company

The Central Jakarta District Court (PN Jakpus) has sentenced tycoon Bambang Hary Iswanto Tanoesoedibjo, alias Hary Tanoe, to pay compensation of Rp 531 billion for being deemed to have committed an unlawful act.

The money must be paid by Hary Tanoe and his company, PT MNC Asia Holding Tbk, along with interest, to PT Citra Marga Nusaphala Persada Tbk (CMNP), the toll road company owned by Jusuf Hamka.

Spokesperson for PN Jakpus, Sunoto, explained that the panel of judges at PN Jakpus, led by Fajar Kusuma Aji, assessed the 1999 transaction between Hary Tanoe’s side and PT CMNP as an exchange of securities agreement.

The transaction is governed by Article 1,541 of the Civil Code and does not fall under the category of a sale and purchase.

Approximately one week apart, CMNP handed over the MTN and bonds to Hary Tanoe.

The tycoon also handed over NCDs in two stages: US$20 million on 27 May 1999 and US$18 million on 28 May 1999.

Both NCDs matured on 9-10 May 2022. However, on 22 August 2002, or 20 years before the NCD maturity, they could not be cashed because Unibank was designated as a Bank with Frozen Business Activities (BBKU) in October 2001.

“(Hary Tanoe) should have known from the outset that the NCDs did not meet the requirements of Bank Indonesia Circular No. 21/27/UPG dated 27 October 1988,” said Sunoto, quoting the judges’ considerations.

On that basis, the panel of judges sentenced PT MNC Asia Holding as Defendant I and Hary Tanoe as Defendant II to pay material loss compensation of US$28 million or Rp 481 billion.

“Plus 6 per cent interest per year from 9 May 2002 until fully paid,” Sunoto stated.

In addition, PT MNC Asia Holding and Hary Tanoe were also ordered to pay immaterial losses amounting to Rp 50 billion.

Excluding interest, the total material and immaterial compensation that Hary Tanoe’s side must pay is Rp 531 billion.

“Declares that Defendants I and II have been proven to have committed an unlawful act that caused losses to the Plaintiff,” said Sunoto.

In its decision, the panel of judges disagreed with PT CMNP’s demand for interest of 2 per cent per month.

Because that interest was not in accordance with the hypothesis and was not proportional.

“Setting a reasonable interest rate of 6 per cent per year as compensation for the time value of money,” said Sunoto.