Expert Witnesses Relieving Tom Lembong's Camp Highlight BPKP's Calculation of State Financial Losses

JAKARTA, KOMPAS – The report on the audit results of the financial losses to the state amounting to Rp 578.1 billion by the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP) has drawn attention from the three expert witnesses presented by the defense in the corruption case of sugar imports at the Ministry of Trade in 2015-2016 involving Thomas Trikasih Lembong or Tom Lembong. The expert witnesses assessed that there were critical errors made by BPKP in calculating the financial losses to the state.

In the continuation of the sugar importation case at the Ministry of Trade for the years 2015-2016 at the Jakarta Corruption Court, Tuesday (24/6/2025), the camp of former Minister of Trade Tom Lembong presented three expert witnesses who provided mitigating testimony. The three are the Head of the Department of Economics at the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Indonesia, Vid Adrison, a Professor of Tax Policy at the Faculty of Administrative Sciences, University of Indonesia, Haula Rosdiana, and an Economic and Political Observer from Political Economy and Policy Studies (PEPS), Anthony Budiawan.

The trial was led by the chief judge, Dennie Arsan Fatrika, accompanied by two member judges, Purwanto S Abdullah and Alfis Setiawan.

During this session, former Governor of DKI Jakarta Anies Baswedan was also seen sitting in the audience seats. This marks the second time Anies has attended the trial of Tom Lembong. Previously, Anies was present at the inaugural hearing, which involved the reading of the indictment against the defendant Tom Lembong on March 6, 2025.

As I said, one, there will be a shortage of sugar in the community so that the price of sugar will increase, government revenue will decrease because there is no production process, and farmers will not get a decent income.

Initially, Tom Lembong's legal advisor, Ari Yusuf Amir, requested the opinion of an expert named Anthony Budiawan, a Public Policy Observer, regarding the audit report from BPKP which stated that there was a financial loss to the state amounting to Rp 578.1 billion.

It is noted in the indictment by the public prosecutor that the financial losses to the state in the sugar importation corruption case at the Ministry of Trade for 2015-2016 amounted to Rp 578.1 billion. This calculation is based, among other things, on losses from overpricing amounting to Rp 194.7 billion. Additionally, there are losses from underpayment of import duties amounting to Rp 383.3 billion.

According to Anthony, there are two critical errors in the calculation of state financial losses conducted by BPKP. The first error pertains to the BPKP audit report, which states that the state financial loss amounts to Rp 578.1 billion due to overpayment.

"It should be noted that the HPP (farmers' reference price) serves as a minimum price, aimed at protecting farmers. Therefore, if there is an excess production that could lead to a price drop, there is a guarantee for farmers to receive a fair price," said Anthony.

Anthony assessed that if a company is deemed to have caused state losses by increasing production costs and then having a profit margin above the cost of goods sold, he believes that no company would be willing to produce sugar.

This is because all producers must incur additional costs for the purchase of sugar, such as raw cane, other materials, and labor. This will certainly result in costs that are higher compared to the HPP.

Anthony believes that if many companies end up no longer producing consumer sugar, the impact will be a sugar shortage in society.

"As I said, one thing is that there will be a shortage of sugar in the community so that the price of sugar will increase, government revenue will decrease because there is no production process, and farmers will not get a decent income," said Anthony.

Next, Anthony continued, the occurrence of state financial losses in import cases is only possible in cases of product misclassification or under invoicing.

Misclassification in the import case occurred due to errors in the classification of imported sugar, resulting in a lower tariff rate than should have been applied.

However, Anthony believes there is no misclassification as found by the BPKP in the case of sugar imports by the Ministry of Trade. He argues that the private company is actually importing raw crystal sugar rather than refined white sugar directly.

"Therefore, the possibility of misclassification is very, very small because the types of sugar can be distinguished, it is not difficult to differentiate GKM from GKP," said Anthony.

Another expert witness, namely the Head of the Department of Economics at the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Indonesia, Vid Adrison, assessed that the Ministry of Trade's action to import raw sugar could stimulate the domestic economy. The reason is that the imported raw sugar must be processed by factories into white crystal sugar.

"This production process will use both labor and material input, so it can drive the economy," said Vid.

He also argued that there is added value when the government imports GKM or non-GKP that can be directly consumed. This method is considered to create a ripple effect on the economy because, in addition to absorbing labor, the import of GKM also saves foreign exchange, thus having a better impact on the exchange rate.

"The stability of the exchange rate will have an extraordinary effect, so in short, the import of GKM has a greater impact compared to GKP," said Vid Adrison.

In line with Vid Adrison, Haula Rusdiana also views the Ministry of Trade's decision to import GKM as the right choice. This importation creates a ripple effect on the economy, such as job absorption.

Imagine earlier, ladies and gentlemen, if from this, which was only discussing labor, a person who previously had no money now has money. Having money, in theoretical terms, refers to take-home pay. If one has take-home pay, it means there are two choices: consumption or saving," said Haula.

During a break in the hearing, Anies also took the time to comment on a journalist's question regarding the possibility of becoming a witness for the defense of the accused Tom Lembong. However, Anies did not provide a definitive answer. According to Anies, witnesses presented must have relevance. He also appreciated the expert witnesses brought in by Tom Lembong's camp.

"I was impressed by the testimonies of the experts who possess relevant expertise and presented their statements objectively. I feel grateful to have witnessed that objective testimony up close," said Anies.

Anies also expressed his reason for attending this trial, which was to provide support as a long-time friend of Tom Lembong. He also expressed gratitude for being able to witness and follow the proceedings in person.

"I have been closely following the entire course of the trial because there are indeed recordings and data available. Today, I participated directly to hear and witness it up close, and I also met with Tom. I spoke with him earlier," said Anies.

Anies hopes that the panel of judges at the Jakarta Corruption Court will uphold the values of justice and respect the principles of objectivity. Whatever the judges' decision may be, it is expected to be made objectively without any pressure from any source.

"I am sure the judge will decide by relying on the principles of truth, honesty, legal certainty, and objectivity," said Anies.