Hotman Paris Odds With CMNP Lawsuit To Hary Tanoe, Considers Slander Cruel

DOC/Sidang gugatan PT Citra Marga Nusaphala Persada Tbk (CMNP) terhadap pendiri dan pemilik MNC Group Harry Tanoe di Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat, Rabu (13/8/2025). ANTARA/Agatha Olivia Victoria.

JAKARTA - The attorney for PT MNC Asia Holding Tbk, Hotman Paris Hutapea, found it odd with the civil lawsuit of PT Citra Marga Nusaphala Persada Tbk (CMNP) against his client, Hary Tanoesoedibjo.

According to him, the object of the lawsuit from CMNP was decided by the court some time ago. Thus, it has permanent legal force or inkrah

"In terms of procedural law, it's okay for people to sue, but will the lawsuit be rejected later? Yes, that's another thing. What is clear here is that the object of the case has been decided for decades," Hotman said in the Special Dialogue program broadcast by INews TV quoted Tuesday, August 19.

This is according to the decision of the Central Jakarta District Court with case number 07 / PDT.G / 2008 / PN.JKT.PST with the plaintiffs CMNP and the defendants Unibank, BPPN, Government RI C.q Minister of Finance and Governor of Bank Indonesia.

In addition, the Criminal Investigation Unit of the National Police has issued an Investigation Termination Order (SP3) number B/553/X/2011/Dit.Tipideksus on October 19, 2011. This SP3 is a follow-up to the CMNP report.

The SP3 validity has been tested through the lawsuit process against the law through the lawsuit No. 151/PDT.G/2011/PN.JKT.SEL dated November 24, 2011, which has permanent legal force through the Cassation decision No. 2174 K/Pdt/2013 dated December 9, 2013 with the decision to reject the Application for Cassation from the Petitioner.

Hotman explained that the CMNP lawsuit was related to the purchase of a Negotiable Certificate of Deposite (NCD) letter to PT Bank Unibank in 1999. When the transaction process occurred, Unibank was still in good health.

However, said Hotman, Unibank was frozen and declared the Government's Frozen Business Activity Bank (BBKU) in 2001. According to him, this was due to the impact of the monetary crisis that hit the country.

On that basis, Hotman questioned the basis of CMNP's lawsuit against PT Bhakti Investama bakal MNC Asia Holding who acted as an arranger or broker for transactions between CMNP and Unibank.

"The problem is what does it have to do with people who introduce it? This is here, Mr. Hary Tanoe's company is just kind of bringing together," said Hotman.

Moreover, said Hotman, CMNP and Unibank still had time to negotiate, confirm NCD and conduct an audit by the accounting firm Praseti Utomo from 1999 to 2001.

"So really, the accusations on social media that said Mr. Hary Tanoe were fraud, fake, that was truly a very cruel slander. A very cruel slander," said Hotman.

"Because of what? (NCD) is not a fraudulent deposit. Because CMNP in court admits that there is indeed a deposit. The court admits that it has already been paid (CMNP), it has been paid. The court also said that it was not Hary Tanoe, not Hary Tanoe's company, but Unibank," said Hotman.

"So what does it have to do with people who only introduce that?" he added.

It is known, PT CMNP sued the founder and owner of the MNC Group Hary Iswanto Tanoesoedibjo alias Harry Tanoe to pay material compensation of Rp. 103 trillion and imateriel worth Rp. 16 trillion for Tanoe's unlawful act in exchange transactions to exchange Deposito Certificate of Deposit (NCD) worth a fraudulent 28 million United States (US) dollars in 1999. The lawsuit has also begun trial at the Central Jakarta District Court.