Suspicious cassation verdict from 2003 used to justify asset seizure deemed “fabricated” by Andri.
Rp 333.66 billion in assets seized under BLBI Task Force actions since 2025.
Audit reveals two BI accounts for Centris, suggesting possible fund and collateral mishandling.
Sixteen years later a pcassation verdict appears, prompting seizure of Andri Tedjadharma’s assets under BLBI framework.
Andri, a shareholder of Bank Centris International, suspects the Supreme Court cassation verdict No. 1688/K/Pdt/2003 is forged, citing inconsistencies in formatting and signatures.
A Supreme Court letter dated May 10, 2023, confirms no cassation request was lodged by BPPN against Bank Centris International.
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO RESUME CONTENT
“If there was no cassation request, it means there was no hearing or verdict,” Andri asserts, calling the document “fabricated” and denying its authenticity.
Government Deploys KPKNL, BLBI Task Force to Seize Assets
State agencies KPKNL and the BLBI Task Force, citing Government Regulation 28 and Perpu No. 49/1960, began confiscations despite doubts about the verdict’s legitimacy.
On August 28, 2025 officials moved to seize a house held in Andri’s wife’s name, but halted after legal intervention.
Also Read:
Krisis Pinjol Indonesia: Tembus Rp100 Triliun, Ini Cara FLIN Bantu Keluar dari Siklus Utang
Prior seizures include land in Bali and Bandung, a Bogor villa, and an office in Jakarta, totaling Rp 333.66 billion in combined value
KPKNL’s justification relies on legal provisions holding relatives two generations apart equally accountable for debt obligations.
Disputed BLBI Claim Triggers Legal and Constitutional Challenges
The controversy traces back to the 1998 financial crisis, when Bank Centris was declared a “Frozen Bank” and shut down by the government.
BPPN accused the bank of misusing BLBI funds, though Bank Centris insisted its dealings with Bank Indonesia involved promissory notes secured by 452 hectares of land.
South Jakarta District Court dismissed the case in 2000, with the High Court in 2001 upholding dismissal due to premature litigation.
No cassation followed—until a 2022 document surfaced—as the government renewed its BLBI enforcement amid pandemic-era asset recovery efforts.
Missing Collateral Land Raises Transparency Concerns
Collateral land spanning 452 hectares, pledged by Andri under the promissory note agreement, was omitted by seizure actions.
KPKNL denies its existence, while Bank Indonesia claims to have transferred collateral to BPPN, without public explanation.
Andri filed suit against the Ministry of Finance and Bank Indonesia at the Central Jakarta District Court, contesting loss of collateral and unpaid notes.
Judicial Review Points to Account “Engineering” at BI
On May 28, 2025, former Constitutional Court judge Dr. Maruarar Siahaan told the court the BPK audit revealed two Bank Centris accounts at Bank Indonesia, suggesting suspicious accounting “engineering.”
Also Read:
Fortune perluas kepemimpinan di Asia dengan Direktur Editorial dan Kepala Brand Studio baru
The auditor showed account numbers 523,551,0016 and 523,551,000 registered under similar names, but one’s ownership remains unclear.
Fact witness Audia Astrantie confirmed one belonged to the bank, the other was an individual account of unknown origin, observed during the 2000 trial.
“All documents had been controlled by BPPN since April 4, 1998,” Audia stated, claiming Andri lacked evidence due to document seizure.***
