Three Defendants in Sritex Case Acquitted, Attorney General's Office Responds

The Attorney General’s Office (Kejagung) has commented on the acquittal of three defendants in the corruption case concerning the provision of banking credit facilities to PT Sritex. The three are former Bank Jateng CEO Supriyatno, former Bank BJB CEO Yuddy Renaldi, and Head of Corporate and Commercial Division at Bank BJB, Dicky Syahbandinata. Head of the Legal Information Centre at Kejagung, Anang Supriatna, stated that they fully respect the decision handed down by the Semarang Corruption Court panel of judges. He added that the acquittal will be promptly studied by the Public Prosecutors (JPU) to inform subsequent legal actions. “We respect and appreciate the panel of judges’ decision. The JPU will first thoroughly examine the contents of the decision and it will then serve as consideration for the JPU to take a stance in accordance with the provisions,” said Anang, quoted on Saturday, 9 May 2026. Previously, the Semarang Corruption Court acquitted former Bank Jateng CEO Supriyatno in the alleged corruption case of granting credit facilities to PT Sritex, which harmed the regional government-owned bank by approximately Rp 502 billion. “Declaring the defendant not proven guilty of the prosecutor’s charges in their entirety. Ordering the defendant to be immediately released after this decision is pronounced,” said Presiding Judge Rommel Franciskus Tampubolon during the trial in Semarang on Thursday evening. In the decision, the panel of judges proved the subsidiary charges drafted by the public prosecutor, namely violations of Article 603 of the Criminal Code on corruption crimes or Article 3 of Law No. 31 of 1999 as amended. According to the judge, during the trial, the defendant was not proven to have intervened to split PT Sritex’s credit application into two. Additionally, the defendant was also not proven to have pressured the credit analysis team or the Bank Jateng Compliance Division in that credit application. “The credit application was analysed in stages and recommendations were sought from the compliance division,” he said. According to him, the defendant was not proven to have intervened and there was no conflict of interest in deciding on PT Sritex’s credit. Thus, according to him, the defendant was not proven to have abused authority or position in that credit application. He mentioned that PT Sritex’s inability to repay the credit was caused by planned manipulation of financial reports.