Hakim Heran PT Timah Rugikan Negara 271 Triliun Tapi Dapat Predikat Baik

Summary

In a corruption trial in Jakarta, former PT Timah's director Agung Pratama testified regarding environmental management in the company's tin mining operations in Bangka Belitung. The court questioned Agung on compliance with environmental impact assessments (AMDAL), and the Ministry of Environment had rated the company’s environmental performance as good. Despite this, the prosecution claims significant environmental damage and state losses of up to IDR 300 trillion. The discrepancy between the ministry's favorable assessment and the alleged environmental harm was highlighted during the trial.

Takeaways

• 🤔 There is confusion regarding a financial loss of between IDR 271 million and IDR 300 trillion in the case involving PT Timah's tin mining activities.
• 🏞️ PT Timah's mining activities in Bangka Belitung were given a positive environmental rating by the Ministry of Forestry and Environment.
• ⚖️ The court questioned Agung Pratama, former Director of Operations and Production at PT Timah, as a witness in the corruption case tied to Harvy Mois, husband of actress Handraadewi.
• 📜 The judge probed Agung on the responsibilities of the Directorate and environmental impact assessments (AMDAL) related to PT Timah's mining activities.
• 🌍 The Ministry of Environment conducted environmental monitoring of PT Timah's mining operations and awarded a good rating for compliance with AMDAL standards.
• 🔍 The court was curious about why there was a contradiction between the alleged environmental damage and the Ministry’s positive rating.
• 💼 Agung stated that environmental assessments were primarily done by the Ministry, shifting responsibility from PT Timah’s internal oversight.
• 📊 The prosecutor's indictment claimed that PT Timah’s activities had caused significant environmental damage, leading to a massive financial loss for the state.
• 👩‍⚖️ The judge sought clarification on the difference between the Ministry's good rating and the financial loss claim of IDR 300 trillion.
• 🌳 The court discussed the environmental management efforts (UKL) and environmental monitoring efforts (UPL) related to PT Timah's activities.

Q & A

What was the subject of the investigation involving PT Timah Tbk in the court hearing?

The investigation focused on allegations of corruption related to PT Timah Tbk's mining activities, which allegedly caused a financial loss to the state amounting to trillions of rupiah.

What role did Agung Pratama play in the case?

Agung Pratama, the former Director of Operations and Production at PT Timah Tbk, was one of five witnesses questioned regarding the corruption allegations.

What environmental aspect was scrutinized during Agung Pratama's testimony?

Agung Pratama was questioned about PT Timah’s adherence to environmental regulations, specifically the implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment (AMDAL), Environmental Management Efforts (UKL), and Environmental Monitoring Efforts (UPL).

Who is responsible for evaluating the environmental impact of PT Timah's operations, according to Agung Pratama?

According to Agung Pratama, the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (KLHK) is responsible for evaluating the environmental impact of PT Timah’s operations.

What did the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (KLHK) conclude about PT Timah’s environmental performance?

The KLHK gave PT Timah a 'good' rating for its environmental performance, indicating that the company had adhered to its AMDAL obligations.

What concern did the judge raise about Agung Pratama’s role in environmental monitoring?

The judge expressed concern that Agung Pratama was distancing himself from responsibility for environmental monitoring, despite PT Timah allocating resources for such monitoring.

What was the contradiction between the Ministry of Environment’s rating and the charges by the public prosecutor?

The Ministry of Environment gave PT Timah a good rating for environmental compliance, while the public prosecutor alleged that PT Timah’s mining activities caused environmental damage and financial losses to the state amounting to Rp 300 trillion.

What specific environmental report was Agung Pratama questioned about?

Agung Pratama was questioned about the company’s compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment (AMDAL) and the subsequent environmental management and monitoring obligations (UKL and UPL).

Why was there confusion regarding the evaluation of environmental impact in the trial?

The confusion arose because, while Agung Pratama claimed that the KLHK had given PT Timah a good environmental rating, the prosecutor's charges alleged significant environmental damage and financial losses, creating a contradiction between the two assessments.

How much financial loss did the prosecution claim PT Timah’s activities caused to the state?

The prosecution claimed that PT Timah’s mining activities caused a financial loss of Rp 300 trillion to the state.