Timeline of the Case: Jusuf Hamka's Issuer (CMNP) Sues Hary Tanoesoedibjo

Jakarta, CNBC Indonesia — The issuer owned by toll road businessman Jusuf Hamka, PT Citra Marga Nusaphala Persada Tbk (CMNP), has won part of its lawsuit against Hary Tanoesoedibjo and PT MNC Asia Holding Tbk (BHIT).

The 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 Rp484 billion (at an exchange rate of Rp17,300) plus 6% interest per year from 9 May 2002 until fully paid.

The panel of judges also sentenced Hary Tanoe and MNC Asia Holding to pay immaterial damages of Rp50 billion jointly and severally, as well as court costs of Rp5.02 million.

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

This decision is a first-instance ruling, so the parties dissatisfied with it have the right to appeal to the Jakarta High Court within 14 days from the date the decision is lawfully notified, in accordance with the applicable civil procedure law.

So, how did the dispute between these two conglomerates begin?

For information, this case emerged and became widely discussed last year. However, the events in question occurred in May 1999. CMNP conducted a negotiable certificate of deposit (NCD) transaction worth US$28 million with PT Bank Unibank Tbk.

At that time, BHIT acted as the arranger. Hary Tanoe’s company was established in 1989 as a securities firm before expanding into the media business in 2001.

Unibank itself was a bank that operated in Indonesia from 1967 until it was frozen in 2001. The bank was previously owned by conglomerate Sukanto Tanoto.

Meanwhile, BHIT’s legal representative, Hotman Paris Hutapea, argued that in this case, CMNP as the plaintiff should sue Unibank or the party that received the funds from the issuance of the securities. Because the transaction was between CMNP and Unibank, and BHIT was only an intermediary in the securities transaction.

Considerations of the Panel of Judges

The panel of judges assessed that Hary Tanoe and MNC, as parties who initiated, offered, and delivered the NCD to CMNP, should have known that the NCD did not comply with Bank Indonesia Circular No. 21/27/UPG dated 27 October 1988, as also emphasised in the Supreme Court Review Decision No. 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 responsibility 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 No. 40 of 2007 on Limited Liability Companies to the defendants, with the consideration that the act in question is not merely an action of the company’s management, but reflects bad faith that exploits the corporate name.