Again, CMNP Witness Doesn't Meet The Requirements, Hotman: Obviously This Benefits MNC Asia Holding

The follow-up trial of the MNC Asia Holding civil case with CMNP. (Ist)

JAKARTA - The trial of the civil case between MNC Asia Holding and PT Citra Marga Nusaphala Persada Tbk (CMNP) continues again with the agenda of examining witnesses.

In this trial, CMNP presented the former Head of the Budget Section, Sulistiowati. Sulistiwati in her statement reiterated that the negotiation certificate of deposit (NCD) transaction is a exchange transaction.

However, Sulistiowati's statement was denied by MNC Asia Holding's attorney, Hotman Paris Hutapea. Hotman said Sulistiowati did not meet the requirements as a witness because the testimony was not seen, felt or heard directly.

"According to the procedural law, a witness only heard from people about an incident, did not meet the requirements as a witness," said Hotman when questioned, Thursday, October 30.

According to Hotman, in the trial held at the Central Jakarta District Court, yesterday, Sulistiowati never knew firsthand about the discussion between the Board of Directors regarding the NCD transaction between CMNP and PT Bhakti Investama (now MNC Asia Holding) with Drosophila Enterprise Pte Ltd.

"(Witness) did not see any negotiations between CMNP and Drosophila or with PT Bhakti. Only he heard from his superiors. So, he said, it was not a witness," he said.

In fact, during the trial, Hotman also had time to search for a transaction letter that did not have a exchange-change clause. Thus, Hotman said that Sulistiowati's testimony actually benefited MNC Asia Holding.

"Today's witness is very profitable, because for them there is no value whatsoever, because their witness today did not see the transaction incident," said Hotman.