if($news->) Image

Jakarta, hukumonline – Investigation suspension on July 13, 2004 to be pretrialed was the one related to Sjamsul Nursalim BDNI case. Anthony Salim untouched?

Boyamin Saiman, an activist of an anticorruption NGO in Central Java was back into action to aim the issuance of Investigation Suspension Warrant (SP3). This time it was not about Hajj corruption case. He aimed at the SP3 issued by the Supreme Court on last July 13, 2004. The warrant was aimed at the investigation of corruption suspicion case of Bank Indonesia Liquidity Aid (BLBI) by Indonesian State Commerce Bank (BDNI) boss, Sjamsul Nursalim.

“It has been registered today at South Jakarta Sub District Court,” said Boyamin on the phone, Thursday (3/4). The pretrial file, he added, among others was based by the violation of people’s justice. He said that corruption in areas was commonly with little value. On contrary, BLBI corruption had to be a corruption with big value. 

“In areas, to chace small value corruption was still withheld, chased like stealing a chicken,” he said. Meanwhile in the central government level, he added. Bad debtors causing loss to the country were left untouched by a guarantee of President Instruction No.8/2002 and SP3.

As commonly known, the SP3 issued for Sjamsul was based on the President’s Instruction No.8/2002 on Providing Law Certainty Guarantee to Debtors who had accomplished their obligation or Legal Action to Debtors who had not accomplished their obligation based on the Obligation Accomplishment of Stockholders. 

The President Instruction determined that for cooperative debtors who got the Paid Information Letter [Surat Keterangan Lunas (SKL)] then they were given criminal punishment-free guarantee. Sjamsul was categorized as a cooperative debtor who had paid government monetary aid. Therefore he was guaranteed to be free by the issuance of SP3 by the Attorney General Office at that time was held by MA Rachman.

As a record, even though the SP3 for Sjamsul had been made, the Attorney General Office (AGO) lead by Hendarman Supandji tried to reinvestigate the case by forming the 35 Attorney team lead by Attorney Urip Tri Gunawan. Besides BDNI, the AGO also brought Anthony Salim.
The AGO was then suspended the investigation because the action against the law committed by the Salim duo was not found. Later after the investigation was suspended, Head of the Attorney Team, Urip was found by the Corruption Eradication Commission to receive some amount of money from Sjamsul Nursalim right hand, named Artalyta Suryani.

Boyamin considered, even though he had submitted his assets to recompensate for the State’s loss, according to the audit result from the Supreme Auditors it was found that the assets returned had a downgrade value. Not to mention the reinvestigation stage to examine the SP3 for the same case, it had been coloured by Urip Tri Gunawan and Artalyta money. “At the beginning we considered the AGO was a clean institution, but after Urip’s case, we doubt it,” he explained.

Based on hukumonline record, the discourse of SP3 issuance headed from beleid commonly known as Release And Discharge policy was not a new thing. Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW) had once had the same discourse. The ICW considered the SP3 giveaway was considered irrational and controversial and not according to the corruption eradication spirit.

The President Instruction was once brought to the Supreme Court for a judicial review by some NGOs. But the last frontiers for seeking justice refused the petition by two main considerations. First, the President had the authority to make a policy step (beleid regels) to save State’s assets. Second, as a policy, the instruction did not belong to the objects for a judicial review.

The fury over the treatment for BLBI debtors not only infected Boyamin and partners. Indonesian Human Rights and Legal Aids Union (PBHI) was also aiming at the same case. The fact that the Corruption Eradication Commission had not taken over the case of BLBI I and BLBI II, was suspected to be the trigger.

Head of PBHI, Syamsuddin Radjab, said that at the moment PBHI was preparing to put the AGO under pretrial. Different from Boyamin, Syamsuddin considered the unwillingness of the Corruption Eradication Commission to take over the BLBI case had become the reason of SP3 existence. “After the pretrial (granted-ed.), then the Corruption Eradication Commission should take over the case,” he emphasized.

Different from Boyamin, PBHI considered the warrant for investigation suspension did not meet the demanded requirements as regulated in Article 140 paragraph (2) of Penal Codes (KUHAP). The condition among others were, no evidences, the case was not a criminal case or the case closed by law.

The question is, whether the SP3 used as the object of pretrial still existed by the reopening of the case through the 35 Attorney Team or not? Head of Legal Information Center (Kapuspenkum) of the AGO BD Nainggolan admitted that he just found out the existence of 2004 SP3. “I’ve just found it out, so I can not make any comments,” he said. Yet responding to the pretrial case having been submitted to the South Jakarta Sub District Court, Nainggolan said, the AGO would be ready to anticipate that.

Long before elected as the Supreme Attorney, Hendarman Supandji once said, to reopen the cases had been closed had to be through a pretrial. “According to the Penal Codes, it can only be opened and tested through a pretrial institution,” he said at that time. In order to dismiss the SP3, the action taken by Boyamin-Syamsuddin Radjab and friends were indeed needed.

According to KUHAP also, what could be the object of the pretrial was limited to the SP3 for Investigation and Prosecution. Another Salim Group Tycoon, Antony Salim, had actually never been touched by investigation. He was let free after getting the Paid Information Letter. So, the SP3 to be pretrialed by Boyamin-Syamsuddin was only the one related to Sjamsul Nursalim. What about Anthony Salim? (NNC/Ali)

Sumber (03/04/08)
Photo from
Translated by Yogi Djatnika (MKRI)


Friday, April 04, 2008 | 15:33 WIB 319
  • Budi Wibowo Halim (Pemohon) menyampaikan pokok-pokok perbaikan atas permohonan Perkara Nomor 117/PUU-XXI/2023. Foto Humas/Ifa

    Image 1
  • Majelis Sidang Panel yang di ketuai oleh Hakim Konstitusi Enny Nurbaningsih. Foto Humas/Fauzan

    Image 2