Attorney General HM Prasetyo (right) in a meeting with the House of Rep. Commission III DPR, Jakarta, Monday (7/9). The parliament wanted to discuss the cessie case involving duo Victoria, VSI and VSIC (ANTARA)
JAKARTA, GRES.NEWS – The investigation into the receivable sale facility agreement (cessie) case between the Indonesian Bank Security Agency or BPPN and PT Adyesta Ciptatama has gotten more complicated. In the pretrial, PT Victoria Securities Indonesia (VSI) and PT Victoria Securities International Corporation (VSIC) are saying they are not affiliated, even though both share 'Victoria' in their name.
VSI filed for a pretrial at the District Court of South Jakarta on Friday (18/9) to claim that the search at its headquarters by the Provincial Public Prosecutor's Office was illegitimate as VSI and VSIC are not affiliated. VSIC was the winner of the bid for the cessie that BPPN launched in 2003. The debtor in the cessie is PT Adyaesta Ciptatama.
"VSI was only founded in 2011, so it would be illogical to think that the company is connected with the cessie sale by BPPN in 2003," said Peter Kurniawan, a lawyer for VSI, at the District Court of South Jakarta, Friday (18/9). Irfan further detailed that the president idirector of VSIC is Budi Guntaran and Fahrurozy, a retired general of the Indonesian Army, is one of its directors.
VSI now demands Rp2 trillion in damages that the 'illegal search' has caused.
FACTS CONNECTING VSI AND VSIC - In response, investigator prosecutor Firdaus Dewilmar presented a host of facts revealing the affiliation between VS and VSIC. He accuses VSI and VSIC of attempting to deceive law enforcers.
The evidence obtained from the search in August that strengthen the fact that both companies are affiliated include a sales agreement contract dated 7 November 2003 between BPPN and Victoria Securities International Corp, and a bundle of letter from Surat Victoria Securities International Corporation to BPPN dated 20 August 2003 regarding Binding Letter of Bid.
"If they are not affiliated, why are all these documents at the plaintiff's headquarters (PT Victoria Securities Indonesia) and were acknowledged to be theirs?" questioned Firdaus.
ATTEMPT TO BLURR THE FACTS - In the pretrial, VSI explained about its profile. The company said its establishment was based on the Indonesian law, namely certificate No. 60 Year 2011 Signed Before Notary by the Name of Suwarni Sukiman. The certificate, VSI claims, reveals no connection between VSI and VSIC.
However, the prosecutors presented the company's Deed No: 60 dated 11 March 2011 Signed by Notary SUWARNI SUKIMAN, SH that reveals 99.99 percent shares is owned by PT Victoria Sekuritas while 0.01 percent is owned by Ms. SUZANNA TANOJO.
The attorneys further revealed that there are at least three documents that prove PT Victoria Investama, Tbk. and subsidiary company PT Victoria Securities Indonesia (the plaintiff) actually share the same office.
The first document is the Deed for the Binding Agreement of the Transfer of Assets and Liabilities from PT Victoria Sekuritas and PT Victoria Securities Indonesia No: 14 dated 12 January 2012, signed before Notary FATHIAH HELMI, SH.
Second, the Shares Sales Agreement No: 25 dated 20 January 2012, signed before Notary FATHIAH HELMI, SH and the Deed for the Binding Agreement of the Transfer of Assets and Liabilities from PT Victoria Sekuritas and PT Victoria Securities Indonesia No:26 dated 20 January 2012, signed before FATHIAH HELMI, SH.
Third, PT Victoria Sekuritas on 2013 acted as the correspondent and guided Victoria Securities International Corporation in a credit asset purchase at theBPPN, including the purchase of credit asset with PT Adyaesta Ciptatama as the debtor
"Therefore, the argument that states the two companies are not affiliated was not based on facts. In fact, it was clearly an attempt to deceive the defendant, the public and other State institutions by presenting [false] information and creating the opinion that the defendant conducted an illegitimate search," Firdaus said.
OTHER INTERESTS IN CESSIE CASE – The cessie case has turned even more complicated because of the search, at VSI's headquarters at the Panin Tower last August, as both VSI and VSIC has brought the matter to the House of Representatives.
The House later summoned Attorney General HM Prasetyo to demand clarification regarding the search. In fact, on 9 September 2015, the House's Commission III held a hearing with the Attorney General to discuss the cessie case that involves BPPN and the Duo Victoria, VSI and VSIC.
The cessie scandal began when PT Adyaesta loaned money from Bank BTN to develop a 1,200-hectare housing complex in Karawang. The state-run bank granted Rp469 billion and required the company to hand over the land's certificate as collateral.
Unfortunately, the economic crisis struck and bad loans began surfacing. Bank BTN entered the list of banks that had to go through restructuring and thus some of its bad loans had to be handed over to BPPN. BPPN then auctioned some of the assets and liatbilities, including the cessie with PT Adyaesta as the debtor.
PT First Capital won the cessie with the receivables worth Rp69 billion to PT Adyaesta. However, due to incomplete documents PT First Capital canceled the purchase. BPPN then held an asset auction titled Kredit IV (PPAK IV), from 8 July 2003 to 6 August 2003, in which Victoria Securities International came out victorious, purchasing the cessie for just Rp26 billion.
PT Adyaesta then approached Victoria to buy back the land with an over that reached Rp266 billion, only to see Victoria demand an unreasonable figure of Rp1.9 trillion. PT Adyaesta didn't give up. It returned with a Rp300 billion offer, but Victoria also increased its demand to Rp2 trillion.
PT Adyaesta Ciptatama President Director, Johny Widjaja took action by filing a report to the provincial public prosecutor's office in 2013. He said there were irregularities in the sales of the cessie as the receivables that was worth up toRp266 billion was sold to PT VSIC for just Rp26 billion.