Bank Employees In Semarang Anggoro Bagus Lose Rp7.7 Billion To The State, The Mode Makes Them Geleng-geleng

Head of the Marketing Unit of a government bank in Semarang City, Anggoro Bagus Pamuji, was seen on the monitor screen while undergoing trial/DOK ANTARA

The Semarang Corruption Court (Tipikor) tried the Head of the Marketing Unit of a government bank in Semarang City, Central Java, Anggoro Bagus Pamuji, for corruption crimes that cost the state up to IDR 7.7 billion. Public Prosecutor Agus Sunaryo said the mode used by the defendant in the crime was to embezzle loan insurance claims and disburse loans from debtors who had died. According to him, the defendant's actions were carried out in the period 2019 to 2021 against five bank debtors belonging to the government who had died. He explained that the defendant abused insurance claim funds for debtors who had died. "The defendant did not deposit the results of the insurance claim and instead transferred the book to another account which was used to pay off other customer loans," he said in a trial chaired by Chief Judge Gatot Sarwadi at the Semarang Corruption Court, Antara, Thursday, March 7. In addition, he said, the defendant also opened a new loan on behalf of five customers who had died. The money from the new loan was also used to pay off other debtors' loans which aim to maintain the performance of the government bank. The loans closed by the defendant with the proceeds of the irregularities include loan installments for Semarang City District Court employees with a total of Rp740 million, loan installments for Semarang Immigration employees amounting to Rp64.8 million. In addition, the loan installments for employees and lecturers at Sultan Agung University (Uzisula) Semarang amounted to Rp207 million, as well as loan installments for Semarang Port Health Center employees amounting to Rp133.5 million. The defendant's actions were charged with Law Number 31 of 1999 which was amended by Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning the eradication of criminal acts of corruption.

On this charge, the defendant did not file an exception and asked for the trial to continue with evidence.