Light Sentence for Former State Banker: 2.5 Years in Prison, State Losses of Rp122 Billion

The Jakarta Corruption Court handed down a sentence of 2 years and 6 months in prison to Frengki Hasoloan Sianturi, a former Relationship Manager at a state-owned bank's Jakarta Regional Office I, in a case involving fictitious credit facilities that cost the state Rp122 billion. The verdict, read on Wednesday (16/9/2026), was far lighter than the prosecutors' demand of 8 years in prison and a Rp750 million fine.

The panel of judges led by Fajar Kusuma Aji ruled that Frengki was legally and convincingly proven to have committed corruption jointly with others. In addition to the prison term, the judge imposed a Rp100 million fine and Rp790 million in restitution. If not paid within one month after the verdict becomes legally binding, the defendant's assets may be seized and auctioned. If the assets are insufficient, the restitution is replaced by an additional 2 years in prison.

In its considerations, panel member judge Alfis Setyawan cited several aggravating factors. Frengki's actions were deemed to have caused state financial losses and enriched himself and others. The judge said the defendant enjoyed Rp790 million from the proceeds of the crime. Meanwhile, no mitigating factors were mentioned in detail.

"Sentencing the defendant Frengki Hasoloan Sianturi therefore to a prison term of 2 years and 6 months," the judge said while reading the verdict.

After hearing the verdict, Frengki appeared to cover his face with both hands before leaving the courtroom. The gesture reflected the psychological burden he must bear, although legally he still has the opportunity to pursue further legal remedies.

The case came to public attention as part of efforts to combat corruption in the banking sector, especially state-owned banks that manage public funds. Fictitious credit is one of the modes that often harms the state, because funds that should be channeled for business financing are instead embezzled. The Rp122 billion loss makes this case one of the significant ones within state-owned banks.

For readers in Indonesia, particularly investors and market participants, this verdict highlights the importance of good corporate governance at state-owned banks. Public trust in the integrity of the national banking sector depends heavily on consistent law enforcement. A verdict lighter than the prosecutors' demand may trigger discussion about the effectiveness of early detection and internal oversight at state-owned banks. Foreign and domestic investors often use this indicator as one consideration in assessing investment risk in Indonesia's financial sector.

Going forward, the public awaits the prosecutors' next move. Will they accept the verdict or appeal? If an appeal is filed, the legal process will continue and become a test of the commitment to fighting corruption. In addition, this case should be a momentum for state-owned banks to strengthen their internal control systems and credit risk management, so that fictitious credit loopholes are not repeated. Without systemic improvements, state losses from corruption in the banking sector could continue to recur.