MEDAN | INDATANEWS.COM - Legal practitioner Rion Arios, S.H., M.H., has raised questions about financial transactions involving PT Toba Surimi Industries (PT TSI) and Bank Mandiri concerning the encashment of 54 cheques worth a total of Rp124 billion. He has questioned the procedures used to process the cheques, as the transactions were allegedly carried out without consultation with PT TSI's management.
Rion, who also serves as deputy chairman of the Medan city branch of the Indonesian Advocates Association (Peradi), believes the matter requires a comprehensive investigation. In particular, the inquiry should establish the authority for encashing the cheques, the status of the funds, the flow of transactions, the accounting records and the basis on which the corresponding liabilities were charged to the company.
In his view, the investigation must go beyond establishing that the cheques were encashed. It should also determine who requested and authorised the transactions, how the bank verified the encashment instructions, who received the funds and how the transactions related to the revolving working capital credit facility, known as Kredit Modal Kerja Revolving (KMK Revolving).
"The fundamental questions are what procedures were followed to encash the cheques, who authorised the transactions, where the funds went and on what basis PT TSI was subsequently charged with the corresponding liabilities," Rion said in an official statement on Monday, 26 October 2026.
Examination of 54 Cheques Requires Documentary Evidence
The encashment of 54 cheques worth a total of Rp124 billion is one of the central issues requiring clarification. Rion has particularly highlighted suspicions that the transactions took place without consultation with PT TSI's management. However, establishing what actually happened will require an examination of transaction documents, bank records and the applicable authorisation procedures.
The investigation must answer several fundamental questions. Who requested the encashment of each cheque? Which authorised employees or executives approved the transactions? Did the bank properly carry out the required verification procedures? What documents formed the basis for executing the transactions?
The entire sequence of events must be traced, from the issuance of the cheques and the submission of instructions through to authorisation, payment and the recording of the transactions in the bank's records and the company's accounts.
Rion believes a comprehensive examination is necessary to ensure that all parties can explain the basis and procedures for each transaction using verifiable evidence. The investigation should therefore not be limited to the number of cheques and their total value. It must also consider the authority of the individuals involved and the intended use of the funds.
Relevant documents include copies of the cheques, transaction instructions, authorisation records, bank statements, payment receipts and other supporting evidence. Cross-checking these records could help establish how the transactions were conducted and who benefited from the funds disbursed.
RION ARIOS CALLS FOR TRANSPARENCY IN BANKING TRANSACTIONS: Rion Arios, deputy chairman of the Medan branch of the Indonesian Advocates Association (Peradi), says the encashment of 54 cheques should be examined against transaction records and the applicable authorisation procedures. (PHOTO: Rion Arios Aritonang)
Status of Revolving Credit Funds and Basis of Claims
Beyond the procedures used to encash the cheques, Rion has questioned the status of the funds associated with the KMK Revolving working capital credit facility. In his view, if the funds originated from a credit facility and remained under the bank's control, the procedures governing their drawdown and use must be explained.
One key issue is whether the funds from the facility were actually transferred to or recorded in an account belonging to PT TSI. Investigators must also establish who received the money, the purpose of the transactions and whether the entries correspond with the bank's records and the company's accounts.
To clarify these matters, the investigation should examine the KMK Revolving credit agreement, the conditions governing credit drawdowns, payment instructions, bank statements, and transfer and reallocation records relating to the 54 cheques.
Rion also refers to information suggesting that the funds involved in the disputed transactions may not have been credited to a PT TSI account or transferred into it, while the corresponding liabilities were allegedly still attributed to the company.
If transaction records substantiate these suspicions, he believes the basis for the claims against PT TSI must be carefully examined. The investigation should establish a clear and verifiable connection between the credit facility, the encashment of the cheques, the actual recipients of the funds and the liabilities subsequently claimed against the company.
Bank Mandiri should explain the contractual arrangements and accounting entries underlying the credit facility. This should include records showing the flow of funds for each disputed transaction. Such an explanation would be important in determining whether the encashment, receipt of any financial benefit, accounting treatment and allocation of liabilities were each supported by a sound basis.
However, the alleged movement of funds and the basis for the claims cannot be conclusively assessed without examining the relevant documents and hearing from the parties involved. The legality of the transactions must be determined on the basis of verifiable evidence, contractual terms and the applicable legal procedures.
STATUS OF KMK REVOLVING CREDIT FUNDS REQUIRES CLARIFICATION: Examining credit documents, transfer records and the basis for financial claims is necessary to establish a clear account of the transactions between PT TSI and Bank Mandiri. (PHOTO: Rion Arios Aritonang)
Due Diligence and the Role of Supervisory Authorities
Rion believes the matter should also be examined in light of the principle of prudence in banking, as set out in Article 2 of Indonesia's Banking Law No. 7 of 1992, as amended by Law No. 10 of 1998.
According to Rion, the review should cover the use of the KMK Revolving credit facility, the authority to issue transaction instructions, the verification procedures applied when the cheques were encashed, the movement of funds and the basis for attributing the liabilities to PT TSI.
All these aspects must be assessed against traceable documentation and verifiable facts. If the investigation identifies indications of procedural breaches, the relevant authorities could pursue the matter through complaint-handling, supervisory or legal procedures in accordance with the applicable regulations.
Rion has also suggested that the Financial Services Authority (OJK), Bank Indonesia (BI) and the Indonesia Deposit Insurance Corporation (Lembaga Penjamin Simpanan, or LPS) consider the matter within their respective remits. It is essential, however, to take account of each institution's responsibilities and legal powers when determining appropriate follow-up action.
The OJK is responsible for regulating and supervising the financial services sector, including banking. Under the applicable legislation, BI has responsibilities in monetary policy, payment systems and macroprudential policy. LPS, meanwhile, fulfils its statutory mandate for deposit insurance and bank resolution within the framework of the law.
Whether, and in what form, each institution should take action must be determined by the specific contents of any complaint and its respective statutory powers. Proper handling of the matter requires clear transaction information, sufficient supporting evidence and official statements from the parties involved.
In Rion's assessment, at least four key questions must be answered: the encashment of 54 cheques worth Rp124 billion; the allegation that PT TSI's management was not consulted; the status of the funds associated with the KMK Revolving credit facility; and the basis on which the corresponding liabilities were charged to the company.
Further Clarification Needed for Balanced Reporting
The matter involving PT TSI and Bank Mandiri is not simply about the value of the transactions. It also raises fundamental questions about authorisation, the movement of funds, accounting practices and the basis for financial claims in the relationship between a bank and its corporate customer.
Several questions remain to be answered through documentary evidence. On what basis were the 54 cheques worth Rp124 billion encashed when, according to Rion, this allegedly happened without prior consultation with the company's management? Were the funds from the KMK Revolving credit facility actually transferred to a PT TSI account? If the money did not reach the company's account, how did the parties involved calculate and justify the liabilities subsequently claimed?
Clarifying these questions is essential to give the public a complete picture and prevent premature conclusions based on suspicions or unverified information. Examining the relevant documents, cross-checking transaction records and obtaining official statements from the parties involved are important steps towards establishing the facts. (IDNC)
REPORTER: Ahmad Zulfikar | EDITOR: Fik Sagala