Majelis hakim Pengadilan Negeri Jak

Majelis hakim Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan menolak gugatan eks nasabah PT Bank Century Tbk.—kini PT Bank J Trust Indonesia Tbk.—dalam sengketa produk reksa dana Antaboga.

Putusan tersebut dibacakan dalam sidang yang digelar Kamis (20/8) dengan ketua majelis hakim Suprapto. “Memutuskan menolak gugatan penggugat untuk seluruhnya,” ujarnya.

Majelis menilai tergugat—yang sebelum diambil investor Jepang bernama PT Bank Mutiara Tbk. (BCIC)—tidak terbukti melanggar Undang-undang No. 8 tahun 1999 tentang Perlindungan Konsumen.

Sebelumnya penggugat menuntut agar pihak bank mengembalikan dana deposito nasabah senilai Rp16,3 miliar yang oleh bank dipindahkan ke produk reksa dana milik PT Antaboga Delta Sekuritas.

Penggugat juga menuntut kerugian imateriil Rp10 miliar.

Ditemui usai persidangan, kuasa hukum penggugat R. Herkus Wijayadi menyatakan akan mengajukan banding atas putusan tersebut. Dia menilai majelis hakim hanya mempertimbangkan saksi ahli dari penggugat dan tidak mempertimbangkan saksi maupun bukti fakta.

“Kami akan banding karena putusan judex factiekurang cukup mempertimbangkan pembuktian kami,” katanya kepada Bisnis.

Sementara itu, pihak Bank J Trust masih enggan memberikan komentar soal putusan perkara. PR eksternal perusahaan mengatakan bank akan mengeluarkan pernyataan resmi pekan depan.
Herkus menjelaskan, hakim hanya mempertimbangkan adanya kop Antaboga, bukan kop Bank Century, pada bilyet yang menjadi bukti di persidangan. Pertimbangan itu, menurutnya, tidak di barengi dengan pertimbangan bagaimana produk Antaboga bisa diperdagangkan di loket Bank Century.

Selain itu, menurutnya majelis hakim tidak menyentuh klausula baku dan soal pelanggaran-pelanggaran Undang-undang Perlindungan Konsumen.

Dalam persidangan, tergugat sempat menjadikan putusan bersalah Mantan bos Bank Century, Robert Tantular atas tindak pidana pencucian uang (TPPU) dan penipuan menjadi alat bukti. Namun, dalam amar putusannya, majelis hakim tidak memakai bukti tersebut dalam pertimbangan.

Perkara ini bermula ketika sejumlah nasabah Bank Century yang memiliki deposito ditawarkan produk reksa dana.

Kemudian, karena iming-iming bunga yang jauh lebih tinggi dari bunga deposito, sejumlah nasabah ini memutuskan me mindahkan depositonya.

Dalam perkara serupa di Pengadilan Negeri Surakarta, justru pihak nasabah yang menang dan bank diperintahkan untuk membayar uang senilai Rp 41 miliar kepada 27 nasabah. Kasus tersebut dimenangkan nasabah hingga tingkat peninjauan kembali (PK) di Mahakamah Agung.

結果 (英語) 1:

The Tribunal judge of South Jakarta District Court rejected the lawsuit ex customer of PT Bank Century Tbk. — now PT Bank J Trust Indonesia Tbk. — mutual fund products in dispute Antaboga. The verdict read out in the trial held Thursday (8/8) with presiding judge Suprapto. "Plaintiffs ' lawsuit Decided to entirely," he said. The Tribunal judge the defendants — who before taken investors Japan named PT Bank Mutiara, Tbk. (BCIC) — did not violate the Statute No. 8 1999 on the protection of consumers. Earlier the plaintiff demanded that the bank refund customer deposits totaling Rp16,3 billion by the bank moved to mutual fund product belongs to PT Delta Antaboga securities. The plaintiffs also demanded a loss imateriil Rp10 billion. Found after trial, attorneys plaintiff r. Herkus Wijayadi States will appeal the verdict. He was judge of the Tribunal judge only consider an expert witness from the plaintiff and did not consider the witness as well as evidence of the fact. "We will appeal because the verdict of judex factiekurang enough considering our proof," he told the business. Meanwhile, the Bank J Trust still reluctant to comment to question the ruling of the matter. External PR company said the bank will issue an official statement next week.Herkus explained, judges consider only Antaboga headers, not the headers Bank Century, on the evidence bilyet in court. The consideration that, according to him, not in barengi with consideration of how products can be traded in loket Antaboga Bank Century. In addition, he thinks the Tribunal judges do not touch raw clause and the question of violations of consumer protection laws. In the trial, the defendants had made the verdict of guilty a former boss of Bank Century, Robert Tantular over the criminal offence of money laundering (TPPU) and become a fraud proof. However, in an award, the Tribunal judge amar not wearing the evidence under consideration. The matter began when a number of Bank Century which has a product to offer mutual fund deposits. Then, because of the lure of interest is much higher than deposit rates, a number of these clients decide me mindahkan depositonya. In a similar lawsuit in State Court of Surakarta, thus assisting party wins and the bank was ordered to pay the money worth Rp 41 billion to 27 borrowers. The case won the customer up to the level of review (PK) at Mahakamah.

結果 (英語) 2:

The judges South Jakarta District Court rejected the lawsuit of former customers of PT Bank Century Tbk? Now PT Bank Indonesia Tbk? J Trust in dispute Antaboga mutual fund products. This decision was read out at the hearing that was held on Thursday (20/8) with presiding judge Suprapto , "Deciding rejected the plaintiffs claim in its entirety," he said. Assembly assess the defendant-that before being taken by Japanese investors named PT Bank Mutiara Tbk. (BCIC) -not proven to violate Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection. Previous plaintiff demanded that the bank return funds worth Rp16,3 billion of customer deposits that banks were transferred to mutual funds owned by PT Antaboga Delta Securities. Plaintiffs also claim immaterial loss of Rp10 billion. Met after the trial, attorney R. Herkus Wijayadi plaintiffs said they would appeal against the verdict. He assessed that the judges consider only the expert witnesses of the plaintiff and did not consider the witness as well as proof of the fact. "We will appeal because the decision judex factiekurang enough to consider our evidence," he told Bisnis. Meanwhile, the Bank J Trust still reluctant to comment about the decision of the case , External PR company said the bank would issue a formal statement next week. Herkus explained, the judge only consider the letterhead Antaboga, not letterhead Bank Century, the slip serving as evidence in court. The consideration that, according to him, not in barengi with consideration of how the product Antaboga can be traded in the counter bank. In addition, according to the judges not to touch the standard clauses and about violations of the Law of Consumer Protection. During the trial, the defendant had made ​​the guilty verdict Former boss of Bank Century, Robert Tantular on money laundering (AML) and fraud into evidence. However, in the verdict, the judges do not wear such evidence into consideration. This case began when a number of Bank Century customers who have deposits offered mutual fund products. Then, because of the lure of interest is much higher than the deposit rate, a number of these customers decide me move a deposits. In a similar case in the District Court of Surakarta, is precisely the customer wins and the bank was ordered to pay Rp 41 billion to 27 clients. The case was won customers up to the level of reconsideration (PK) in the Supreme Court.