PT CBS - PT KNI: Publik Tahu Perkaranya tapi Tidak dengan Isi Kontraknya

JAKARTA - In every corporate case that develops into a criminal realm, the first question that should arise is not "who is guilty?", but rather "what actually happened?". This principle is the foundation of every professional investigation. Because, without understanding the business structure that underlies a dispute, it is very easy for the public to mix up the problems of underperformance, corporate governance violations, and corruption.

According to Prof. Erman Rajagukguk in various studies on corporate law and SOEs, business risks arising from corporate decisions are essentially part of business activities, as long as the decisions are made in good faith, with due care, and without conflict of interest. On the other hand, if the decision is made against the law to provide benefits to certain parties or to the detriment of the interests of the company and the state, then the criminal aspect can emerge.

A similar view also develops in the doctrine of the Business Judgment Rule, which places the decision-making process as the main object of legal assessment, not merely the end result.

The case involving PT CBS and PT KNI is an example of how a dispute over a business contract can develop into an object of investigation by law enforcement. However, until now, the information available to the public is still limited. There are not many documents that explain how the business relationship between the two companies was formed, what the value of the receivables in question was, how the settlement mechanism was, and what actions were suspected of fulfilling the elements of a criminal act.

Every receivable always has its origin. It is impossible for a company to suddenly have a bill worth hundreds of billions of rupiah without the underlying legal relationship. Therefore, the first document to be sought is the business contract between PT CBS and PT KNI.

The contract is the key to answering a number of fundamental questions. Is the relationship between the two companies a form of steel sales, distribution of goods, provision of services, loans, or other forms of commercial cooperation? Who signed the agreement? What are the rights and obligations of each party? When should the payment be made? Is there a guarantee or penalty clause if there is a delay?

The Founding Secretary of Indonesian Audit Watch (IAW) Iskandar Sitorus said that the object of investigation of the National Police was the alleged criminal act of corruption and/or criminal act of money laundering in the process of settling debts or obligations of PT CBS to PT KNI which was allegedly involving civil servants or state organizers and occurred in the legal territory of Polda Metro Jaya during the period 2020-2025.

"However, until mid-July 2026, the public has not received sufficient details regarding the initial value of the debt, the basis of the business relationship, the goods or services that gave rise to the receivable, the payment schedule, the guarantees, the value that was finally agreed upon, and what decisions were allegedly influenced illegally," he said. Iskandar Sitorus to VOI, Tuesday, July 21.

"In other words, the public has been given the title of the case, but has not been given the contents of the contract," he added.

The Head of the Corruption and Crime Investigation Unit of the National Police, Inspector General of Police Totok Suharyanto, explained that the case related to the settlement of PT CBS's debt to PT KNI had been gradually transferred to the Attorney General's Office along with the investigation administration and evidence to be followed up in accordance with the authority. This statement shows that the focus of the investigators has shifted from the stage of collecting evidence to the next legal process.

"We have agreed with the Attorney General's Office that the handling of the investigation by the National Police has been transferred to the Attorney General's Office in the context of synergy," said Totok.

PT KNI and PT CBS

Krakatau Steel's financial documents list PT KNI as PT Krakatau Niaga Indonesia, an entity in the Krakatau Steel group that is engaged in the steel trading business. Krakatau Steel's consolidation documents also show the business group's very dominant ownership of PT KNI. This position is important.

If PT KNI is part of a state-owned enterprise group, the receivables it holds are not just numbers in the books of a regular private company. The settlement of these receivables can have an impact on the assets, income, cash flow, and economic value of state-owned enterprises.

However, the status as a state-owned enterprise does not automatically make every business loss a state loss and does not automatically make every debt restructuring a corruption!

SOEs and their subsidiaries continue to operate as corporations. They face market risks, default risks, customer risks, and business decisions that sometimes end badly.

The new criminal law only applies if there is evidence that the decision is not merely wrong or harmful, but is formed through unlawful acts, abuse of authority, conflict of interest, bribery, gratification, extortion, manipulation of documents, or transfer of profits to certain parties.

Unlike PT KNI, the complete identity and legal position of PT CBS have not been explained in detail in the open official statement.

Investigators have not explained to the public what the full name of the legal entity is; what is its business activity; what is its business relationship with PT KNI; what goods were purchased or what obligations arose; what is the principal amount of debt; what is the interest, fine, or penalty; whether the debt is secured by assets; whether it has ever been sued in civil or filed for bankruptcy and PKPU processes; and how the final settlement was designed. In fact, these details are the foundation of the case!

Without knowing the origin of the debt, the public cannot assess whether this case is related to steel transactions, financing, credit sales, debt transfer, corporate guarantees, or other business relationships. Investigators have also not explained whether PT CBS is only a debtor, a negotiating party, or part of a network of companies allegedly used to transfer assets.

Money is sure to leave a trace.

In the July 8, 2026 search, the joint team visited two locations of PT CBS, in East Cengkareng and its headquarters, as well as the office of PT KNI in Petojo Selatan, Central Jakarta. Searches were also carried out on the homes and offices of a number of other parties with initials, including other business groups and companies.

The direct search of both parties in the debt relationship shows that investigators may need comparative documents from both sides. From the creditor side, investigators can search for: sales contracts or agreements that give birth to receivables; invoices; waybills and proof of receipt of goods; bank statements; aging reports; meeting minutes; collection letters; legal memoranda; collateral assessment reports; approval of directors and commissioners; and restructuring documents.

Iskandar again asked the reason why the debt value of PT CBS to PT KNI and the number of indications of state losses in this cluster had not been announced until now. This requires caution. Losses cannot be directly equated with the amount of debt that has not been paid! Iskandar reminded that in corruption cases follow the money trail.

Because PT KNI is part of the Krakatau Steel group, the BPK audit will have an important weight if investigators want to use the construction of state financial losses. The BPK can examine the basis of receivables, restructuring decisions, release of rights, asset values, and whether the decisions have led to a reduction in the wealth of state-owned enterprises.

However, an audit is not a substitute for an investigation. Auditors can calculate how much value is lost or not collected illegally. Investigators must still prove: who proposed the scheme; who approved it; what documents were used; whether there was a conflict of interest; who received hidden payments; and where the funds were then diverted.

"In corporate cases, the number of losses without evidence of evil intent can end up as a governance or civil case! On the other hand, strong evidence of bribery can form a corruption case even though the audit of losses has not become the main point," said Iskandar Sitorus.

Head of the Legal Information Center of the Attorney General's Office, Anang Supriatna, emphasized that the public should not associate an individual or an institution with alleged criminal acts based solely on information that develops in the media or social media. According to him, the entire law enforcement process must still uphold the presumption of innocence and be based on valid evidence.

This principle is important in the case of PT CBS - PT KNI because until now the substance of the contract, the value of receivables, and the restructuring mechanism have not been fully published to the public.

Map the Evidence Found According to the Case!

The search of the three clusters was carried out simultaneously. The police seized suitcases, safes, documents, electronic devices, cash in several currencies, and gold. From the series of searches in Sentul, it was reported that assets were worth around IDR 476 billion, while from other locations, it was reported that large amounts of money were involved. However, it has not been explained which part is related to PT CBS - PT KNI. This is an important issue!

Investigators must provide separate codes and administration for each piece of evidence. It must be clear: where the goods were found; who controlled it; it was confiscated based on a letter for what case; what is its relevance to the debt transaction; and whether the results of the forensic analysis link it to PT CBS, PT KNI, or certain officials.

If the evidence from the coal cluster, ASABRI-Jiwasraya, and PT CBS-PT KNI is mixed without mapping, the indictment can become vague and easily questioned. The rule of placing evidence according to the case in accordance with Article 39 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (KUHAP) regarding the criteria of objects that can be seized, as well as Article 194 and Article 197 paragraph (1) letter i of the KUHAP regarding the determination of the final legal status in the judge's decision.