CMNP vs. Hary Tanoe: Full Timeline of the Rp119 Trillion Lawsuit

• The case began with a 1999 exchange of securities involving an NCD (negotiable certificate of deposit), which PT Citra Marga Nusaphala Persada Tbk (CMNP) now disputes.
• CMNP, the listed toll road company owned by Jusuf Hamka, is suing Hary Tanoe and PT MNC Asia Holding Tbk for total damages of Rp119 trillion.
• The suit alleges unlawful acts and questions the legality of an NCD that could not be cashed.
• The defendants deny involvement, saying they acted only as arranger, and argue the claim has expired under the statute of limitations.

The dispute between the listed company led by Jusuf Hamka and the conglomerate Hary Tanoesoedibjo is more than an ordinary business feud. The case has drawn wide attention from the public, the media, and Indonesia's legal community because of the very large losses at issue and because it involves a transaction from more than two decades ago.

In this article, we trace the full timeline of the conflict, with facts, dates, the parties involved, and the legal proceedings up to the point the case went viral.

1. Background to the NCD Transaction (1999)

On May 12, 1999, PT Citra Marga Nusaphala Persada Tbk (CMNP) and Bambang Hary Iswanto Tanoesoedibjo (Hary Tanoe) carried out a transaction involving an exchange of securities. In this transaction:

• Hary Tanoe offered a Negotiable Certificate of Deposit (NCD) worth US$28 million, issued by Unibank, as the medium of exchange.
• CMNP handed over a Medium Term Note (MTN) of Rp163.5 billion and bonds of Rp189 billion to Hary Tanoe as part of the exchange.
• The NCD was then delivered to CMNP in stages: US$10 million on May 27, 1999 and US$18 million on May 28, 1999.

With an original maturity of May 2002, the NCD should have been cashable on time if the issuer had run into no problems. However, Unibank was declared a Bank Beku Kegiatan Usaha (BBKU, a bank barred from doing business) and dissolved in October 2001, shortly before maturity. As a result, the NCD could not be cashed.

2. Lawsuit Filed in Court (2025)

After an internal review, on March 3, 2025, CMNP formally filed a civil lawsuit at the Central Jakarta District Court on behalf of the company against:

• Bambang Hary Iswanto Tanoesoedibjo (Hary Tanoe)
• PT MNC Asia Holding Tbk
• Two other individuals: Tito Sulistio and Teddy Kharsadi

The lawsuit is registered under case number 142/Pdt.G/2025/PN Jkt.Pst.

In the lawsuit, CMNP demands:

• Material damages of about Rp103 trillion
• Immaterial damages of about Rp16 trillion
• For a total claim of Rp119 trillion.

CMNP also asked for a security attachment over the assets of Hary Tanoe and the company, including shares, property, and other movable assets, to ensure the claim can be met if the suit succeeds.

3. Legal Basis of the Lawsuit: The Disputed NCD

In the petitum (the relief sought), CMNP states that the NCD transaction was an unlawful act because:

• the NCD is legally invalid and cannot be cashed, and
• it caused major losses to CMNP as the holder.

CMNP stresses that it wants legal certainty over the transaction, given the very large sums involved once interest and the losses suffered over more than two decades are counted.

4. Response and Denials From the Defendants

PT MNC Asia Holding Tbk and its legal counsel stated firmly that:

• MNC's role in the transaction was only as an arranger or intermediary in the past.
• All matters of the NCD transaction between CMNP and Unibank took place outside the company's role from the start.
• The lawsuit is considered expired, because under substantive law the case dates back more than 26 years.
• MNC also holds that the dealings with Unibank, not MNC Asia Holding or Hary Tanoe, are the root of the dispute.

Hotman Paris Hutapea, as legal counsel, even stated that the criminal side of the case has been declared closed, or time-barred, in an earlier ruling in a case involving Unibank, including a cassation review at the Supreme Court.

5. Court Proceedings and Testimony

At a later hearing at the Central Jakarta District Court, Jusuf Hamka appeared as a witness and testified about the background of the transaction and why CMNP considers the NCD invalid.

CMNP's legal counsel said the transaction was not a sale but an exchange of assets that was valid administratively, yet the NCD CMNP received had a legal defect and so could not be cashed.

Meanwhile, Hary Tanoe's legal team drew attention in the courtroom after being reprimanded by the judge several times over questions judged not to be substantive.

6. Impact of the Case and Public Attention

The case went viral not only because of the extraordinarily high claim but also because it involves two big names in Indonesian business, Jusuf Hamka and Hary Tanoe. The public has focused on several points:

• the legality of a long-running financial transaction,
• the very long period covered by the claim (26+ years),
• and the potential for an important legal precedent on third-party responsibility in securities transactions.

Legal and business observers even predict the outcome could become an important reference in future commercial disputes.

The conflict between CMNP and Hary Tanoe is more than an ordinary business quarrel. It is a complex legal dispute stretching from a transaction in the 1990s to a trial in 2025.

With a claim of Rp119 trillion, the case tests the time limits on legal claims, the role of the arranger in a transaction, and how evidence and the legality of securities are examined in court. The final result matters not only to both sides but could also set a precedent for resolving corporate disputes in Indonesia.