Gold trader in Mayestik Market, Suhaemi Zakir pleaded for Banking bill. The preliminary hearing was held at MK Plenary Room. In short, the Petitioner whose 10 kg gold has vanished feels disadvantaged by the ruling of Article 49 verse (3) letter b of Banking bill.  

Toward the Panel, Rinaldi as the Attorney explained that the Plaintiff was hurt by the ruling of Article 49 verse (3) letter b Banking bill. The Article hampers Plaintiff’s effort to report DKI bank to police and Financial State Authority (OJK). OJK and the police condemned the Article ambiguous and refuse to process Plaintiff’s report.

Previously, the Plaintiff pleaded Mayestik market. The market’s officials broke off his store at night without any specific reason, 10 kg of gold in his store was vanished in result. The Plaintiff later filed a lawsuit to District Court and eventually won the case, Mayestik side must pay off the loss through DKI bank.

Nonetheless, the execution was stooped. DKI bank held back the fund decongestion, Bank cited that the process hasn’t met the requirement as the executioner did not take clearing letter when the execution took place.  

“For the incident, Plaintiff brought the case to the Police for trespassing Article 216 and 231 Criminal Code and Article 49 Banking bill. But the report was scrapped as the Police sees Article 49 verse (3) letter b of Banking bill ambiguous,” Rinaldi said.

Same reason was used by OJK to scrap the report.

Plaintiff petitioned a quo Article as his rights for compensation was removed. Rinaldi considered that DKI bank should be sanctioned as the bank disregarded the Court’s decision.  (Yusti Nurul Agustin/mh/kun)