After 16 years of its absence, a copy of the Supreme Court’s (MA) cassation verdict No. 1688/K/Pdt/2003 suddenly appeared and was used by the government to seize the personal assets of Andri Tedjadharma, a shareholder of Bank Centris International.
Andri strongly suspects that this verdict is not an authentic one but rather a fake, created outside of the Supreme Court.
Irregularities in the Cassation Verdict
This suspicion arose due to several irregularities found within the contents of the verdict copy. Additionally, in an official letter received by Andri Tedjadharma from the Supreme Court dated May 10, 2023, it was clearly stated that “there was never a cassation request from BPPN against Bank Centris International.”
Andri Tedjadharma’s Statement
“If there was no cassation request, it means there was no case, no hearing, and no verdict. Therefore, I am certain that the copy of the Supreme Court verdict No. 1688/K/Pdt/2003, used by KPKNL to collect and seize my family’s personal assets, is a fabricated or fake verdict,” Andri asserted.
Government Actions Through KPKNL and BLBI Task Force
Despite these clear pieces of evidence, the government, through the State Asset Management and Auction Service Office (KPKNL) and the BLBI Task Force, continued to proceed with the collection and seizure of Andri Tedjadharma’s personal assets.
KPKNL relied on Government Regulation 28 and Perpu No. 49 of 1960 as their legal basis. This regulation allows the government to seize the assets of those deemed responsible for state debts, including extended family members up to two generations above and below.
Seizure Incident and Resistance
On Tuesday (8/28/2025), KPKNL and the BLBI Task Force attempted to seize the house under Andri’s wife’s name.
Baca Juga:
However, the seizure was postponed after Andri and his legal team put up a resistance. According to Andri, this house is the only personal asset left after KPKNL and the BLBI Task Force had already seized his land in Bali, Bandung, a villa in Bogor, and an office in Jakarta.
Background of the BLBI and Bank Centris Case
This case stems from the financial crisis that hit Indonesia in 1998. On April 4, 1998, Bank Centris International was ordered to cease its operations by the government and was declared a “Frozen Bank” (BBO).
All offices and branches of Bank Centris were seized and taken over by the government, with all directors and employees expelled without being allowed to take any documents.
Baca Juga:
Shortly thereafter, the government accused Bank Centris of receiving BLBI funds and demanded the return of these funds. However, Bank Centris denied this allegation, stating that their relationship with Bank Indonesia was solely based on the sale and purchase of customer promissory notes worth IDR 492 billion, secured by 452 hectares of land, as recorded in Deed 46 on January 9, 1998, before notary Teddy SH.
Prolonged Legal Process
BPPN subsequently sued Bank Centris in the South Jakarta District Court. The result was that BPPN’s lawsuit was dismissed because Bank Centris was proven not to have received BLBI funds, according to the South Jakarta District Court Decision No. 350/Pdt.G/2000/PN.JKT.SEL.
Dissatisfied, BPPN appealed, but was again dismissed on the grounds of premature litigation (NO) by the Jakarta High Court in decision No. 554/Pdt/2001/PT.DKI. BPPN then filed for cassation.
However, the Supreme Court’s cassation verdict never materialized until 2022, after the BLBI Task Force was formed by President Jokowi in 2021. Now, with the emergence of a suspicious cassation verdict, Andri Tedjadharma is determined to fight this injustice.
452 Hectares of Collateral Land Missing
Amidst the prolonged legal process, there was another irregularity regarding the 452 hectares of collateral land previously pledged by Andri Tedjadharma in the customer promissory notes sales agreement.
Baca Juga:
This collateral was never mentioned in the seizure process by KPKNL and the BLBI Task Force. KPKNL stated that such collateral never existed, while Bank Indonesia (BI) claimed to have handed it over to BPPN.
Andri Tedjadharma’s Legal Action
Feeling unjustly treated and regarding the missing 452 hectares of collateral land and unpaid promissory notes by Bank Indonesia, Andri Tedjadharma has filed a lawsuit against the Ministry of Finance and Bank Indonesia at the Central Jakarta District Court. Currently, the lawsuit is still in the trial process.
“We will continue to fight to uphold truth and justice,” Andri concluded his statement.
Judicial Review of the PUPN Law at the Constitutional Court
Another legal effort was taken by Andri Tedjadharma by filing a judicial review of Law No. 49 PRP of 1960, concerning the State Receivables Affairs Committee (PUPN), which is the umbrella for PP-28/2022, at the Constitutional Court.
In the fourth hearing, May 28, 2025, which presented Dr. Maruarar Siahaan SH, former constitutional judge 2003-2008, an expert witness for the applicant, the public was surprised. Some expert witnesses were also surprised.
“I almost didn’t want to talk about this,” he said opening his testimony.
“But I was surprised by the authentic facts presented. This is very shocking, and has not been answered by the Government or the Related Parties.”
Maruarar was surprised by the evidence from the BPK audit results which showed two accounts in the same name at Bank Indonesia. One, named Bank Centris Internasional—one with number 523,551,0016, and another Centris International Bank, with number 523,551,000.
This fact, according to him, shows that there was engineering or irregularities in the distribution of BLBI funds, and until today, there has been no adequate explanation from the state.
Two ‘Centris’ Accounts at Bank Indonesia
The existence of two “Centris” bank accounts at Bank Indonesia was comprehensively explained by Audia Astrantie, a fact witness who is the applicant’s secretary.
Audia confirmed that the original account was PT Bank Centris Internasional, 523,551,0016. Meanwhile, the Centeis International Bank account, 523,551,000, was an individual type of relasaya account whose owner was unknown.
“Andri Tedjadharma learned about these engineered accounts from BPK evidence submitted by the government in the BPPN lawsuit trial against Bank Centris Internasional at the South Jakarta District Court in 2000,” said Audia.
He added that Bank Centris Internasional and Andri Tedjadharma, when sued at the South Jakarta District Court, did not have a single document, because all of Bank Centris Internasional’s documents had been controlled by BPPN since April 4, 1998. ***
