Expressing Errors By KPK Personnel, Bumigas Asked For A Confrontation With HSBC Indonesia

Illustration. (Photo: Doc. Antara)

PT Bumigas Energi (PT BGE) urged that it be met in an official forum with the Deputy for Prevention of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), PT HSBC Indonesia, PT Geo Dipa Energi (Persero), Deputy Attorney General for Civil and State Administration (TUN) of the Attorney General's Office.

PT BGE's attorney, Khresna Guntarto in Jakarta, Monday, November 21, said this was done as a form of confrontation with the claim that the results of the examination by the State Attorney General (JPN) to Bank HSBC Hong Kong regarding the absence of PT BGE's initial phase of funds (1st drawdown) in 2005 for the build operation transfer (BOT) project from PT Geo Dipa Energi regarding the Development and Management of Dieng and Patuha Geothermal Power Plants.

PT BGE, said Khresna, called for all parties to show evidence or written examination results from Bank HSBC Hong Kong which said PT BGE in 2005 never had money.

"In fact, the money is available and has been sent by investors from PT BGE, namely China New Technology (CNT) through Honest Group Holding Limited from the Bank of China to HSBC Hong Kong dated April 29, 2005, amounting to 40 million Hong Kong dollars or the equivalent of 5 million US dollars, as acknowledged by PT GDE based on Letter Number: 058/PRESDIR-GDE/V/2005 dated May 9, 2005 with the title: "First drawdown Dieng 2.3 & Patuha 1, 2, 3 Geothermal Power Project", he said.

HSBC Hong Kong itself has given a written answer to PT BGE asking about the truth of the financial transaction. This answer was conveyed by HSBC Hong Kong to the lawyer for PT BGE in Hong Kong, Stephenson Harwood in 2018. HSBC Hong Kong only mentions that banking information checks in Hong Kong can only be carried out within a period of seven years.

Therefore, all documents on financial records and transactions exceeding that time period have been destroyed, so that the transfer and the closed account are no longer recorded on HSBC Hong Kong.

Thus, even if there is another party's examination of HSBC Hong Kong, PT BGE believes the answers obtained will not be the same. The fact that the availability of PT BGE's initial funds on HSBC Hong Kong in 2005 cannot be dismissed and denied.

PT BGE investors, namely CNT, finally resigned because PT GDE as the Project GIVEr could not show any Geothermal Business Permit (IUP) which includes the Geothermal Working Area (WKP) as mandated by Law No. 27/2003 concerning Geothermal.

PT GDE cannot show IUP and WKP, but instead PT BGE has decided unilaterally to cooperate by PT GDE, through an arbitration mechanism in BANI up to two times. In the 1st BANI process, PT BGE won at the Kasasi level, Reconsideration (PK) to PK for PK in connection with Cancellation of the BaNI Decision.

In the 2nd BANI process, PT GDE requested assistance from the Chairperson of the 2015-2019 KPK Agus Rahardjo until finally ordering the Deputy for Prevention of the KPK, Pahala Nainggolan to issue a Letter of the Corruption Eradication Commission of the Republic of Indonesia (KPK) a. Deputy of Prevention Pahala Nainggolan to PT Geo Dipa Energi (Persero) Number B/604/LIT. 04/10-15/09/ 2017 dated 19 September 2017.

The Deputy for Prevention of the KPK, said Kreshna, provided misinformation, wrong and wrong by explaining that PT BGE had never opened an account in 2005. The KPK reasoned to get information from PT HSBC Indonesia.

"In fact, PT HSBC Indonesia never gave an explanation to the KPK and only explained that PT BGE is not a customer and PT HSBC Indonesia itself has no relationship with HSBC Hong Kong," he explained.

Later, Pahala Nainggolan admitted that the examination was carried out by the State Attorney from Jamdatun AGO who went to Hong Kong along with the management of PT GDE. This information was used as the basis for Agus Rahardjo and asked Pahala Nainggolan to issue the letter.

According to PT BGE, what Pahala Nainggolan did was not in accordance with its procedures and was beyond its authority. In fact, presenting different information and contradicting the real facts.

PT BGE dared to juxtapose a letter of response from HSBC Hong Kong to PT BGE with HSBC Hong Kong's answer to the State Attorney used by the KPK.

"This is an easy and simple problem, such as rat ngumpet, the aftermath will continue to be visible. The more it is revealed who is lying and who is honest," said Kreshna.

PT BGE also asked the KPK to conduct a forensic audit of the implementation of the Geothermal project by PT GDE because it uses state finances or debt that will burden state finances. It is strongly suspected that PT BGE was deliberately removed, because there has been a potential state financial loss according to the State Audit Result Report with Certain Purposes (PDTT) of the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) in 2017, due to the use of State Investment (PMN) money amounting to Rp607.307 billion in 2015 when PT GDE was still in dispute with PT BGE in the process of canceling the 1st BANI decision.

"PT GDE boasts that it will win, but the fact is that PT BGE won so that the project had to be returned to the BOT scheme according to the KTR 001 Agreement. As a result, the disbursement of state money was not right on target. Not to mention, regarding the implementation of construction from PT GDE which was not appropriate according to the BPK audit, as well as allegations of corruption in the construction of Patuha Unit I in West Java, which was funded by Bank BRI and Bank BNI," said Krishna.

For this reason, continued Kreshna, PT GDE initiated the 2nd BANI case by asking for help from KPK personnel to make a letter providing incorrect information regarding the availability of 1st drawdown from PT BGE in 2005. The letter from the KPK was considered by the 2nd BANI Council to beat PT BGE.