Jakarta. Andri Tedjadharma, the shareholder of Bank Centris Internasional, on Tuesday denied reports that the bank had taken Rp 4.5 trillion in debt from the so-called Bank Indonesia Liquidity Support (BLBI) which was disbursed during the 1998 financial crisis.

In a lengthy media statement, Andri dismissed media reports, including those by the Jakarta Globe, alleging that Bank Centris Internasional has outstanding debts to the state. Those reports were based on data from the government.

On June 28, the BLBI Task Force issued a press release stating that Andri has unpaid state obligations totaling Rp 4.5 trillion. The report was published in the Jakarta Globe under the title "Government Seizes Rp 333.66 Billion in Assets Linked to BLBI Debtors Benny Ahadi and Andri Tedjadharma." Andri, as a shareholder, disputes this information.

"Bank Centris Internasional is not seeking to place blame on any party or institution. We are solely focused on the truth, which has been recognized by the judges presiding over our cases and is based on verified evidence," Andri said.

"There has been a sophisticated, systematic, computerized, protected, concealed, and meticulously planned act of fraud and embezzlement against the "nation and state of Indonesia" by exploiting and deceiving Bank Centris Internasional. This involved creating a "bank within a bank" inside Bank Indonesia during call money overnight transactions in the interbank money market, involving other banks to misappropriate state funds," he added.

Andri said the government must not make two different decisions regarding the same case. The case of Bank Centris Internasional has been adjudicated by two government institutions, one by a court ruling and another by the State Receivables Affairs Court (PUPN). This has created legal uncertainty. "The state is obligated to take responsibility for the unclear freezing of Bank Centris Internasional," he said.

"Bank Centris Internasional and Andri Tedjadharma are not debtors, as Bank Centris Internasional never received a single cent from Bank Indonesia, let alone BLBI. According to evidence in the case of Bank Centris Internasional vs. BPPN, Bank Centris Internasional did not receive any funds; therefore, the agreement under Deed Number 46 is legally null and void. Consequently, the government should not be demanding repayment from us, but rather, the state should be responsible for the consequences of the unilateral freezing of Bank Centris Internasional," he added.

The detailed explanation according to Andri Tedjadharma is as follows:

1. Bank Indonesia entered into a promissory note purchase agreement with collateral under Deed Number 46 dated January 9, 1998, with Bank Centris Internasional. This was not a loan agreement, and Bank Indonesia did not transfer funds to Bank Centris Internasional’s account No. 523.551.0016 as stated in the deed. Instead, it was a sales agreement for promissory notes. Therefore, we are not BLBI debtors as framed by the media. Moreover, Article 3 of Deed No. 46 states that Bank Indonesia cannot collect from Bank Centris Internasional as there was already a land guarantee of 452 hectares owned by PT Varia IndoPermai. However, Bank Indonesia sold this to the now-defunct Indonesian Bank Restructuring Agency (BPPN) under Deed No. 39 of 1999 without our knowledge, and our agreement with Bank Indonesia has not been settled.

2. Bank Centris Internasional has handed over promissory notes of its customers worth Rp. 492.216.516.580 and land guarantees of 452.8305 hectares with mortgage rights in the name of Bank Indonesia.

3. The South Jakarta District Court case No. 350/Pdt.G/2000/PN.JKT.SEL, supported by evidence from the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK), confirmed that the agreed nominal value of Rp. 490.787.748.596.16 under Deed No. 46 was never transferred to Bank Centris Internasional’s account No. 523.551.0016 but instead to an individual account purportedly in Bank Centris Internasional’s name, No. 523.551.000.

4. This reveals the existence of two accounts in the name of Bank Centris Internasional at Bank Indonesia, proving the practice of a bank within a bank at Bank Indonesia. Bank Mega’s Treasurer Dwi Budoyo Pagiarto confirmed that he was unaware of the account being debited when Bank Mega lent call money to Bank Centris Internasional.

5. Bank Centris Internasional has won in the District Court, the High Court, and the Supreme Court, with the decision being published on November 2, 2022. Despite a nearly 20-year delay in notification, it was confirmed that the Supreme Court never received a cassation request from BPPN.

6. BPPN and PUPN demanded and sued us based on Deed No. 39 made by Bank Indonesia and BPPN. The sum of Rp. 629.624.459.126.36 mentioned in the deed is identical to the figure stated by BPPN based on BPK’s audit, indicating the manipulation of funds in an individual account rather than Bank Centris Internasional’s original account.

7. During the trial of case No. 171/Pdt.G/2024/PN.JKT.PST, Bank Indonesia stated that the 452 hectares of land guarantee was handed over to BPPN and the State Assets and Auction Services Office (KPKNL), but both institutions denied receiving it, proving that Deed No. 39 is legally flawed.

8. BPPN, PUPN, and KPKNL executed actions based on flawed legal grounds, blocking, seizing, and auctioning our assets and those of our family.

9. The Finance Ministry’s initial mistake was in letter No. 589 of 2012, which had contradictory legal grounds. PUPN’s summary of this audit failed to acknowledge the ongoing legal proceedings and the existence of guarantees.

10. The situation is ironic, as PUPN, an extension of BPPN, was unaware of the ongoing case and misinterpreted the BPK’s audit results, which clearly state that Bank Centris Internasional and Andri Tedjadharma were not part of the PKPS program.

11. Regulations or laws cannot be applied retroactively. SK No. 49 on debt determination and the letter of forced payment No. 216/PUPNC.10.00/2021, issued in 2021, has been ordered to be revoked by the State Administrative Court (PTUN) ruling No. 428/G/2022/PTUN.JKT and No. 202/B/2023/PT.TUN.JKT. PUPN and KPKNL have unlawfully applied PP No. 28 against us, leading us to sue for their unlawful actions in case No. 171/Pdt.G/2024/PN.JKT.PST.

"In conclusion, Bank Indonesia, KPKNL, and PUPN have acted unlawfully against Bank Centris Internasional and its shareholders, wrongly labeling them as debtors. Over 26 years of unjust treatment must draw the attention of the president and the public, as this injustice could affect anyone at any time," Andri concluded.

Add as a preferred source on Google +