Palm oil and the richest [Profil orang terkaya no. 1 di Indonesia]

https://www.kaskus.co.id/thread/51eaba118027cf6368000001/profil-orang-terkaya-no-1-di-indonesia/

Robert Budi Hartono atau sering disingkat R. Budi Hartono sebenarnya memiliki nama asli Oei Hwie Tjhong. Robert adalah seorang alumni Universitas Diponegoro Semarang, keturunan Tionghoa yang lahir di Kudus, Jawa Tengah pada tahun 1941 sebagai anak kedua dari Pendiri Djarum, Oei Wie Gwan. Michael Bambang Hartono adalah kakaknya yang memiliki nama asli Oei Hwie Siang.

Spoiler for 10 orang terkaya 2013:

R. Budi Hartono menikahi seorang wanita bernama Widowati Hartono atau lebih akrab dengan nama Giok Hartono. Bersamanya, Pemilik PT Djarum ini memiliki tiga orang putra yang kesemuanya telah menyelesaikan pendidikan. Mereka adalah Victor Hartono, Martin Hartono, dan Armand Hartono.

Sebagai salah satu orang terkaya Indonesia, tentunya Anda bertanya-tanya darimana kekayaan yang dimiliki Robert Budi Hartono. Mari kita mulai dari titik awal Bos Djarum ini merintis karir.



Djarum Awal dari Semuanya

Bersama kakaknya Michael Hartono, Robert di usianya yang ke 22 tahun menerima warisan salah satu perusahaan rokok ternama saat ini, Djarum. Perusahaan Djarum sebelumnya merupakan usaha kecil yang bernama Djarum Gramophon yang kemudian dibeli oleh ayah Robert pada tahun 1951 dan mengubah namanya menjadi Djarum. Robert dan kakaknya menerima warisan ini setelah ayahnya meninggal. Pada saat itu pabrik perusahaan Djarum baru saja terbakar dan mengalami kondisi yang tidak stabil. Namun kemudian di tangan dua bersaudara Hartono bisa bertumbuh menjadi perusahaan raksasa.

Saat ini, Di Amerika Serikat pun perusahaan rokok ini memilki pangsa pasar yang besar. Dan di negeri asalnya sendiri, Indonesia, produksi Djarum mencapai 48 milyar batang pertahun atau 20% dari total produksi nasional. Seiring dengan pertumbuhannya, perusahaan rokok ini menjelma dari perusahaan rokok menjadi Group Bisnis yang berinvestasi di berbagai sektor.

R. Budi Hartono dengan Group Djarum yang dipimpinnya pun melebarkan sayap ke banyak sektor antara lain perbankan, properti, agrobisnis, elektronik dan multimedia. Diversifikasi bisnis dan investasi yang dilakukan Group Djarum ini memperkokoh Imperium Bisnisnya yang berawal di tahun 1951.

Sektor Perbankan



Pada tahun 2007, R. Budi Hartono bersama kakaknya, Michael Hartono di bawah bendera Group Djarum melebarkan investasi ke bidang perbankan. Dan menjadi pemegang saham utama, mengendalikan 51% saham, PT Bank Central Asia Tbk (BCA) yang merupakan salah satu bank terbesar di Indonesia saat ini. Berdasarkan data Bank Indonesia pada Desember 2011 nilai aset BCA sebesar Rp 380,927 Triliun (tiga ratus delapan puluh koma sembilan ratus dua puluh tujuh rupiah).

Sektor Properti



Di sektor ini, banyak proyek yang dijalankan di bawah kendali CEO Djarum ini, R. Budi Hartono, dan yang paling besar adalah mega proyek Grand Indonesia yang ditantangani pada tahun 2004 dan selesai pada tahun 2008. Proyek ini mencakup hotel (renovasi dari Hotel Indonesia), pusat belanja, gedung perkantoran 57 lantai dan apartemen. Total nilai investasinya 1,3 Triliun rupiah.

Sektor Agribisnis



Di sektor Agribisnis, Robert bersama Michael memiliki perkebunan sawit seluas 65.000 hektar yang terletak di provinsi Kalimantan Barat dari tahun 2008. Mereka bergerak di bawah payung Hartono Plantations Indonesia, salah satu bagian dari Group Djarum.

Sektor Elektronik dan Multimedia



Salah satu bisnis Group Djarum di sektor ini bergerak di bawah bendera Polytron yang telah beroperasi lebih dari 30 tahun. Perusahaan Polytron ini kini juga memproduksi ponsel yang sebelumnya hanya meproduksi AC, kulkas, produk video dan audio, dan dispenser.

Sektor Lainnya



Salah satu sektor bisnis yang baru mulai berkembang di Indonesia adalah bisnis online. Group Djarum pun tertarik untuk “menikmatinya” lewat perusahaannya Global Digital Prima Venture.

Bukti Eksistensi Group Djarum

Gedung pencakar langit di kompleks mega proyek Grand Indonesia diberi nama Menara BCA. Karena bank BCA menjadi penyewa utamanya dari tahun 2007 hingga 2035. Dengan demikian tergabunglah lingkungan operasional dua raksasa bisnis Indonesia di tengah-tengah pusat ibukota yang menjadi bukti keberkuasaan Djarum di kancah bisnis Indonesia.

SEMOGA BERMANFAAT DAN BISA MENJADI MOTIVASI BAGI AGAN2 SEMUA UNTUK TERUS MAJUUUUU !

Mafia izin HGU lahan sawit dan korupsi mantan bupati Buol

Sumber: https://acch.kpk.go.id/id/jejak-kasus/54-amran-abdulah-batalipu

Terdakwa adalah Bupati Buol periode 2007 s/d 2012, dimana di wilayah Kabupaten Buol PT HIP sebagai salah satu anak perusahaan  PT CCM milik Siti Hartati Murdaya mengelola perkebunan kelapa sawit sejak tahun 1994 telah memiliki ijin lokasi atas tanah seluas 75.000 hektar, namun yang telah mendapatkan Hak Guna usaha (HGU) hanya seluas 22.780,76 hektar sedangkan sisanya seluas 52.309,24 hektar belum mendapatkan status HGU.

Pada tahun 1999 PT HIP mengajukan HGU kepada Menteri Negara Agraria/ Kepala BPN atas tanah seluas 33.083,3 hektar yang merupakan bagian dari tanah belum berstatus HGU seluas 52.309,24 hektar, namun dengan berlakunya Peraturan Menteri Negara Agraria/Kepala BPN No 2 Tahun 1999 tentang Izin Lokasi, permohonan tersebut tidak dapat diproses karena satu perusahaan dan atau satu grup perusahaan hanya diperbolehkan memiliki HGU dalam satu provinsi maksimal 20.000 hektar sehingga ijin lokasi tanah seluas 52.309,24 hektar tersebut menjadi tidak berlaku, padahal dari sebagian tanah itu yakni seluas 4500 hektar oleh PT HIP telah ditanami kelapa sawit.

2011
Pada tahun 2011 PT HIP mengajukan surat permohonan Izin Lokasi atas tanah seluas 4.500 hektar yang sudah terlanjur ditanami kelapa sawit tersebut kepada Terdakwa, dengan mengatasnamakan PT Sebuku Inti Plantation (PT SIP) yang juga merupakan anak perusahaan PT CCM. Namun permohonan ijin lokasi atas nama PT SIP hingga Tahun 2012 tidak keluar.

2012
Menanggapi hal tersebut pada tanggal 15 April 2012 bertempat di ruang Tamu VIP Lt. Dasar Centra Niaga Kawasan Pekan Raya Jakarta (PRJ) Kemayoran Jakarta Pusat pihak PT HIP yang dihadiri Siti Hartati Murdaya, Gondo Sudjono Notohadi Susilo, Totok Lestiyo, Arim dan Yani Ansori melakukan pertemuan dengan Terdakwa, yang mana dalam pertemuan tersebut PT HIP melalui Siti Hartati Murdaya meminta agar Terdakwa menerbitkan surat-surat yang berhubungan dengan proses pengajuan IUP dan HGU terhadap tanah seluas 4.500 hektar atas nama PT CCM dan menerbitkan surat-surat yang berhubungan dengan proses pengajuan IUP dan HGU terhadap tanah diluar tanah 4.500 hektar dan 22.780,76 hektar.

Menindak lanjuti pertemuan tersebut, pada tanggal 11 Juni 2012, bertempat di Hotel Grand Hyatt Jakarta, dilakukan pertemuan lagi antara pihak PT HIP yang dihadiri oleh Siti Hartati Murdaya, Totok Lestiyo, Gondo Sudjono Notohadi dan Arim dengan Terdakwa, yang mana dalam pertemuan itu Siti Hartati Murdaya meminta kembali kepada terdakwa sebagaimana yang pernah disampaikan dalam pertemuan sebelumnya di PRJ. Selanjutnya disepakati Siti Hartati Murdaya akan memberikan uang sebesar Rp3 miliar kepada Terdakwa, yang mana proses penyerahannya sejumlah Rp1 miliar akan diberikan melalui Arim dan yang sejumlah Rp2 miliar  akan diberikan melalui Gondo Sudjono Notohadi Susilo.

Pada tanggal 11 Juni 2012 Arim membuat surat ijin lokasi untuk tanah seluas 4.500 hektar yang dibuat dengan tanggal mundur yakni tertanggal 21 Mei 2012 sebagaimana yang diperintahkan oleh Siti Hartati Murdaya, surat mana yang asli diberikan kepada Terdakwa di showroom Mitsubishi di daerah Cempaka Mas Jakarta, sedangkan tembusannya dikirim oleh Arim via faximile kepada Yani Ansori dengan permintaan agar segera membuat konsep surat-surat rekomendasi untuk  dimintakan tanda tangan kepada Terdakwa serta memberikan uang kepada Tim lahan. Selai itu Arim  memberitahu Yani Ansori bahwa untuk penandatanganan surat tersebut Siti Hartati Murdaya akan memberikan uang sebesar Rp1 miliar kepada Terdakwa, untuk itu Arim meminta Yani Ansori agar mengatur pertemuan dengan Terdakwa guna penyerahan uangnya.

Yani Ansori selanjutnya mempersiapkan surat-surat yang berkaitan pengajuan HGU dengan berkonsultasi kepada Amir Rihan Togila selaku Ketua Tim lahan. Setelah redaksi surat-surat dimaksud disetujui oleh Amir Rihan Togila, Yani Ansori menyerahkan kepada Amir Rihan Togila sekaligus memberikan uang sebesar Rp100 juta.

Pada hari Senin pagi tanggal 18 Juni 2012, Terdakwa menghubungi Arim melalui telepon dan meminta agar Arim menyerahkan uang sebesar Rp1 miliar di rumah kediaman Terdakwa Jl Mawar Nomor 1 Kelurahan Leok I Kabupaten Buol pada tengah malam. Atas permintaan Terdakwa itu, Arim bersama Yani Ansori membawa uang sebesar Rp1 miliar ke rumah Terdakwa dengaan cara memasukan ke dalam tas ransel warna cokelat, dan setibanya di rumah Terdakwa selanjutnya Yani Ansori menyerahkan tas ransel tersebut kepada Terdakwa.

Sehari setelah penyerahan uang tersebut, Terdakwa menandatangani surat-surat terkait pengajuan HGU untuk tanah seluas 4.500 hektar yang pada pokoknya berisi agar Gubernur Provinsi Sulawesi Tengah dan Menteri Negara Agraria/Kepala BPN RI memberikan rekomendasi IUP dan HGU kepada PT CCM atau PT HIP atas lahan seluas 4.500 hektar. Kemudian surat yang telah ditandatangani Terdakwa diserahkan kepada Amir Rihan Togila yang kemudian diserahkan kepada Arim dan Yani Ansori.

Tanggap 19 Juni 2012 Terdakwa menyampaikan kepada Totok Lestiyo bahwa surat-surat terkait permohonan IUP dan HGU atas tanah seluas 4.500 hektar yang ditandatangani oleh Terdakwa tekah diserahkan kepada Arim dan Terdakwa meminta kepada Totok Lestiyono agar PT HIP atau PT CCM segera memenuhi kekurangan uang yang akan diberikan kepada Terdakwa, dimana Totok Lestiyo menjanjikan akan segera menyampaikan permintaan Terdakwa kepada Siti Hartati Murdaya,

Pada tanggal 20 Juni 2012 Siti Hartati Murdaya menghubungi Terdakwa melalui Handphone milik Totok Lestiyo menyampaikan ucapan terima kasih atas bantuan Terdakwa dan meminta agar Terdakwa menerbitkan surat-surat yang berhubungan dengan proses pengurusan pengajuan IUP dan HGU terhadap tanah di luar 4.500 hektar, serta akan memberikan uang sebesar Rp2 miliar Kemudian Siti Hartati Murdaya memerintahkan Totok Lestiyo untuk mengatur penyerahan uang tersebut kepada Terdakwa, untuk itu Totok Lestiyo meminta Arim menyiapkan uang sebesar Rp2 miliar yang diambil dari kas PT HIP atau PT CCM. Dengan alasan sangat berisiko jika membawa uang secara tunai, maka Arim mentransfer uang tersebut ke beberapa rekening yakni, Rp500 juta ke rekening Bank Mandiri atas nama Gondo Sudjono Notohadi Susilo, Rp500 juta ke rekening Bank Mandiri atas nama Dede Kurniawan, Rp250 juta ke rekening Seri Siriton dan Rp250 juta ke rekening Benhard. Sedangkan yang sebesar Rp500 juta Arim meminta kepada Gondo Sudjono Notohadi Susilo dan Sukirno untuk membawa secara tunai ke Buol masing-masing sebesar Rp250 juta- sekaligus memerintahkan kepada mereka untuk berkordinasi dengan Yani Ansori guna penyerahan uang sebesar Rp2 miliar itu kepada Terdakwa.

Gondo Sudjono Notohadi Susilo kemudian memberitahu Yani Ansori bahwa dirinya akan datang ke Buol untuk bertemu Terdakwa guna menyerahkan uang Rp2 miliar Setelah Yani Ansori mengambil uang sebesar Rp500.000.000,- dari Berhand, kemudian Yani Ansori menyerahkan kepada Gondo Sudjono Notohadi Susilo untuk digabungkan dengan uang sebesar Rp1,5 miliaryang dicairkan dari rekening milik Sukirno dan Dede Kurniawan.

Pada Selasa pagi 26 Juni 2012 Yani Ansori menghubungi Terdakwa melalui handphone Gazali untuk menanyakan kapan dan dimana Terdakwa bersedia menerima uang sebesar Rp2.000.000.000,- tersebut, yang mana Terdakwa meminta agar Yani Ansori menyerahkan uang itu ke Villanya di Kelurahan Leok Kabupaten Buol.

Selanjutnya Yani Ansori, Gondo Sudjono Notohadi Susilo, Sukirno dan Dede Kurniawan membawa uang sebesar Rp2 miliar yang telah dimasukan ke dalam 2 (dua) dus minuman air mineral menuju villa Terdakwa, kemudian Yani dan Gondo Sudjono Notohadi Susilo menyerahkannya kepada Terdakwa dengan cara meletakannya di lantai ruang tamu villa. Setelah menerima uang tersebut, beberapa saat kemudian Terdakwa ditangkap oleh petugas dari Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK).

The Danish CDM Programme in Malaysia

http://www.thebioenergysite.com/articles/747/the-danish-cdm-programme-in-malaysia

The Danish Government is currently involved in 15 Clean Development Mechanism-projects in Malaysia.

The majority of these projects are within the palm oil sector with the aim of reducing GHG emissions as well as improving the social and environmental sustainability of palm oil production.

There are more than 390 palm oil mills in Malaysia, making the country one of the largest palm oil producers in the world.

According to the Danish energy ministry, the palm oil sector has a large potential for CDM, which is also reflected in the fact that the majority of the 83 Malaysian CDM-projects registered by UNFCCC today, are in the palm oil sector.

The traditional palm oil process produces large quantities of solid waste and organic wastewater which leaves a huge potential to developing biogas, biomass and composting projects. Projects that due to technological and investment barriers so far have not been possible to develop without the CDM mechanism.

The Danish CDM involvement in Malaysia is an offset of the former Danish environmental development programme for Southeast Asia, and Denmark has contributed with finance and knowledge to the build up of the well functioning Malaysian CDM authority.

In 2004, Denmark entered the first contract with a Malaysian CDM project.

In 2006 the same project was the first project to be registered in Malaysia.

Since then, the Danish portfolio has grown to the current 15 projects.

The Danish CDM projects are located on the Malaysian Peninsula, but there are also two projects on the state of Sarawak and plus three on the state of Sabah on Borneo.

All the projects, except for one, are waste handling projects from palm oil production, either composting projects producing organic fertiliser from empty fruit brunches or biogas or biomass projects producing energy for internal or external use.

The last project is a landfill project located in the South of Malaysia producing biogas from waste.

From the outset the aim of the programme has been to ensure long-term environmental, social and financial benefits within the vicinity of the projects.

It is a priority that the projects have a positive spin-off effect, such as reduced air pollution, new jobs, improved quality of water and stable and cheap energy supply. In addition, the project owners today have to agree to the principles of the UN Global Compact and particular CSR issues when entering a purchase agreement with the Danish government.

Several of the Danish CDM projects have been important first movers in the region with regard to efficient use of empty fruit bunches for biomass production or waste processes turning the organic waste from the mills into either nutrition rich fertilizer or biogas.

Many of these palm oil producers are today certified as sustainable by the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) which is an international non-profit organisation supported by International NGOs, palm oil producers and banks.

The Danish project portfolio is closely managed by the Danish Energy Agency together with the Danish Embassy in Kuala Lumpur and our consultant Danish Energy Management.

In total, the 15 projects are estimated to reduce more than 1 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalents by 2013, but as the installed technology will carry on, the benefit for the environment will continue for many years to come.

September 2010

Kuasai 220.000 Hektar Lahan Sawit di Liberia, Perusahaan RI Diprotes Warga Lokal

http://finance.detik.com/read/2013/01/23/114250/2150496/1036/kuasai-220000-hektar-lahan-sawit-di-liberia-perusahaan-ri-diprotes-warga-lokal

Angga Aliya - detikfinance

Rabu, 23/01/2013 11:58 WIB

 

Distrik Butaw - Perusahaan asal Indonesia ternyata menguasai kebun sawit yang cukup luas di Liberia, Afrika. Akan tetapi sekarang lahan tersebut diprotes oleh para petani yang sudah bertahan di tengah perang saudara selama 15 tahun.

Lahan tersebut berlokasi sekitar tiga jam perjalanan dari ibukota Liberia, Monrovia. Perusahaan asal Indonesia yang bernama Golden Veroleum Liberia (GVL), menanam sawit di atas bukit yang tadinya hutan sekitar provinsi Sinoe County, bagian selatan Liberia.

"Kami tidak menolak perkembangan (industri), tapi kami ingin didengar, dihormati. Kami ingin mereka (GVL) mendengarkan kami," kata salah satu petani lokal Benedict Smarts dikutip AFP, Rabu (23/11/2013).

Pada 2010 lalu, GVL mendapatkan izin pinjam pakai lahan seluas 220.000 hektar untuk memproduksi minyak sawit. Biayanya sebesar US$ 1,5 (Rp 15 ribu) per hektar tiap tahun untuk area hutan yang belum dijamah, dan US$ 5 (Rp 50 ribu) per hektar tiap tahun untuk lahan yang sudah siap tanam.

Sayangnya, perjanjian ini dilakukan tanpa sepengetahuan warga setempat. Saat penandatanganan perjanjian dilakukan di Monrovia, sama sekali tidak ada warga provinsi Sinoe yang menjadi saksi.

Banyak warga di desa Plu, yang berada dekat lahan sawit itu, melayangkan protes terhadap perusahaan asal Indonesia tersebut. Mereka merasa ditindak semena-mena oleh perusahaan asing.

"Orang-orang Indonesia itu datang ke sini pertama kali September 2010," kata warga setempat bernama Benedict Manewah.

"Mereka bilang: Kami sudah punya perjanjian konsesi, presiden kalian yang menjualnya kepada kami," tambahnya.

"Tiga bulan kemudian mereka kembali lagi... dan mereka mulai menghancurkan ladang, kebun, kandang ternak, dan rumah-rumah," imbuhnya.

Manewah masih ingat beberapa tanaman yang ia tanam dan urus untuk bertahan hidup. "Dulu saya punya pohon karet, singkong, sukun, jeruk, kakao, kelapa dan palem," katanya yang sebagian juga dipakai untuk makanan sehari-hari keluarganya.

Para pekerja GVL menghancurkan ladang milik Manewah karena merasa tanah tersebut sudah masuk dalam teritori yang disewa GVL untuk menanam sawit.

"Hasilnya tanamannya mereka bawa pulang untuk rakyat di negaranya (Indonesia)," jelasnya.

(ang/dnl)

Deadly Conflict Over Honduran Palm Oil Plantations Puts CEO in the Spotlight

Written by Jennifer Kennedy, CorpWatch Blog 
Thursday, 10 January 2013 16:19

Source: Corpwatch

Months before he was killed this past September, Antonio Trejo-Cabrera reportedly sought protection from Miguel Facussé, the owner of Dinant Corporation, a major Honduran snack food and agricultural company. Trejo had good reason to be afraid – he was a lawyer who represented peasant movements fighting palm oil plantations in the Honduras in the last three years – many of whom were subjected to violence and other human rights abuses.

A recent profile of Facussé in the Los Angeles Times describes the 89-year-old businessman as " a symbol of the old style of patriarchal power" that has "ruthlessly developed the country over the decades from a hot and dusty backwater to an international producer of bananas, cheap clothing and, more recently, biofuels."

Facussé joined the biofuel rush by planting African palm trees, backed by funds from bilateral and multilateral loan agencies like the World Bank. The palm trees yield a fruit which can be processed to produce biofuels that is in high demand by governments who want industry to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels like coal and petroleum in order to meet international obligations to mitigate global warming under the Climate Change convention.

Dinant quickly became one of the biggest players in this field in the Honduras - it manages 22,000 acres of plantations, exporting half of the produce to other countries.

In 2008, Dinant sought loans, totaling $100 million, in order to develop its production of African palm from a German public development bank, Deutsche Entwicklungsgesellschaft (DEG), the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the Central American Bank for Economic Integration. The World Bank released $15 million of its loan to Dinant in November 2009.

Much of the palm oil development in the Honduras is taking place in the Bajo Aguán valley where an escalating conflict is taking place between large land owners and thousands of landless peasants. This conflict dates back to the 1960s and 1970s, the Honduran government developed agrarian reform laws, giving land in the Aguán region to thousands of subsistence farmers.

In 1992 the Law for Land Modernization was passed, undermining farmers' rights. In the two years following passage of the 1992 law, three large landowners "used a combination of fraud, coercion and violence to consolidate ownership of 73.4 percent of the land transferred under the prior agrarian reform," says Lauren Carasik, a human rights expert writing for Al Jazeera.

Deeming the land sales illegal, the farmers organized into groups -  Unified Aguán Peasant Movement (MUCA), Aguán Peasant Movement (MCA) and Authentic Peasant Protest Movement of Aguán (MARCA) - which are demanding that the government nullify the 90's land sales.

Progress was made - although short lived - in 2009 when President Manuel Zelya agreed to grant some farmers land titles. But in November 2009 the Honduran military removed the democratically elected president in a coup d'etat. (Facussé admits that his plane was used to deport the foreign minister against her will, but says the pilot was acting under military orders) The next two presidents - Roberto Micheletti and Porfirio Lobo - refused to honor Zelaya's agreement, sparking peaceful occupations of 12,000 acres of disputed land. Aguán farmers continue to demand justice just as violence has intensified.

Post coup Honduras has seen violence and impunity increase across the country. According to the United Nations, Honduras now has the highest homicide rate in the world, with 96.1 murders per 100,000 people. Whilst many of the murders are attributed to gang and drug violence, attacks against civil rights campaigners have also risen. The Honduran Bar Association state that there have been 74 lawyers murdered since 2009 and according to Reporters Without Borders 30 journalists have been killed in Honduras in the past decade, 25 of them since the coup.

Alarmed by ongoing human rights abuses, Rights Action, a U.S. based human rights group, wrote to the World Bank in November 2010. "The World Bank decision to release funds to Dinant sent a clear message to Dinant: that the company and its owners enjoy impunity for their actions, and the World Bank will tolerate violence, illegal land grabbing, and even participation in military coups by corporations and their owners..."

In 2011, DEG, the German development bank, canceled a $20 million loan to Dinant, when FIAN, an international NGO working for food rights, presented them with a report on human rights violations in Bajo Aguán. The report documented "evidence of the involvement of private security forces hired by Dinant and other companies owned by Miguel Facussé in human rights abuses and, in particular, in the murder of peasants in Bajo Aguán."

A number of human rights organizations say they continue to be extremely concerned by the situation in the Aguán region. In a recent report, Rights Action called on the World Bank to suspend the second loan installment stating that, "the Bank's actions assist in the robbery of land, stolen by violent actors that enjoy Bank funding."

The World Bank is due to conduct an audit to revaluate the `social risks' associated with the project, but Rights Action noted that "it is unclear when this audit will or has begun, and whether it could lead to a suspension of the second disbursement of the Dinant loan."

In May 2012, a public hearing on the human rights situation in the peasant communities of Bajo Aguán concluded that the agrarian conflict in the Bajo Aguán is the " most serious situation in terms of violence against peasants in Central America in the last fifteen years."

Since the coup at least 60 people, mostly farmers as well as some Dinant employees, have been killed in the Aguán conflict, according to the Associated Press.

Dinant representative Roger Pineda told the new agency that the deaths of farmers were a result of infighting among the peasantsas they compete for land.

The violence came to international attention when Trejo (who was also a preacher) was shot dead after presiding over a wedding in Tegucigalpa, the national capital, in late September just after he won a court ruling against Dinant. Shocked by the prominent lawyer's killing, three United Nations Special Rapporteurs Frank LaRue, Christof Heyns, and Margaret Sekaggya, described the killing as "totally unacceptable."

Facussé has responded to widespread speculation that he was involved in the lawyer's murder. "I probably had reasons to kill him but I'm not a killer," he told the Los Angeles Times. ``I deeply lament the death of the lawyer Trejo Cabrera, as I lament the loss of any human life, independent of any differences I might have had with him on the legal plane on the issue of land in Aguán,' he added in remarks to the Associated Press.

Meanwhile violence in the Aguán continues. In early November, three farmers were gunned down at a bus stop. A week later the body of Jose Cecilio Perez, a member of MARCA who had been kidnapped, was found on a riverbank.

In the Los Angeles Times profile, the writer noted that Facussé kept " files of photos of the various Honduran activists who are most vocal against him." Stopping him for good "will take some doing" the businessman told her with a smile.

Goodhope Holdings & Agro Indomas

Source: http://www.goodhopeholdings.com/pages/default/root/our_company/0

Goodhope... helping feed the world while preserving its resources.

There is an insatiable global demand for better quality food and a global imperative to produce food in a sustainable manner. Goodhope is a company determined to meet both challenges and has already established an impressive record of success.

Building on more than a century of plantation experience, inherited from our parent company Carson Cumberbatch of Sri Lanka, Goodhope is maximizing its productivity and returns to stakeholders, minimizing its use of resources, and protecting and preserving the natural environment and surrounding habitats and communities.

"Our vision is to become an integrated global player
in the food industry, whose people and performance
will lead change and deliver exceptional growth."

Today Goodhope is a company with a land bank of 157,889 hectares in Indonesia and Malaysia, of which 64,214 hectares is developed. 

From our roots in oil palm plantations, we are moving along the value chain to become an integrated player in the edible oils and fats market. Our entry into the edible oils & fats segment has been secured with the acquisition of refining and specialty fats businesses. This is simply the first step in achieving our goals for a sustainable future.

We believe in:

• maintaining a firm focus on our key objectives.


• being flexible enough to adapt to change and take advantages of new opportunities.


• moving fast enough to turn opportunities into reality.

The organizational design we've developed to realize our vision is as follows.

SMART and GAR take responsibility for land cleared without IPK process

Source: http://www.smart-tbk.com/newsroom_latest.php

21 December 2012

PT SMART Tbk (SMART) and its parent company Golden Agri-Resources (GAR) clarify that land clearing took place on 2,449 hectares (ha) of land, without going through the necessary Timber Clearing Permits process, also known as Izin Pemanfaatan Kayu (IPK). This took place between January 2011 and May 2012 in three GAR concessions in Kapuas Hulu, West Kalimantan, namely PT. Kartika Prima Cipta (KPC), PT. Paramitra Internusa Pratama (PIP) and PT. Persada Graha Mandiri (PGM), which are managed by SMART. SMART and GAR are accountable and take responsibility for this mistake and have since counselled and suspended the staff involved.

In practice, before land clearing, SMART marks out the areas to be developed in its concessions and submits the IPK application to the Provincial Forestry Office for approval. SMART will also submit IPK applications for the subsequent areas to be developed when required. The IPK application process takes about six months. During the process, local officials will survey the land for any commercially valuable timber. If commercially valuable timber is found, an IPK licence is required and SMART will pay the relevant licence fee.

In November 2010, SMART submitted the IPK applications for those areas it intended to develop in PT KPC, PT PIP and PT PGM. Based on these applications, the Provincial Forestry Office issued letters of recommendation stating that IPK licences were needed for some of the areas, while the IPK licence was not required for the rest of the areas. Accordingly, SMART paid the relevant licence fee where the IPK licence was needed and proceeded with land preparation in those areas which do not require the IPK licence.

Additionally, there were 2,449 ha outside the November 2010 IPK application. Instead of going through the IPK process, SMART's officers initiated a survey to identify any commercially valuable timber in these 2,449 ha. Based on the learning of the earlier IPK surveys by the Provincial Forestry Office, such as vegetation conditions in areas that do not require IPK licence, SMART's officers concluded that there was no commercially valuable timber in the 2,449 ha. Hence, SMART proceeded to clear the land without submitting the IPK application to the Provincial Forestry Office.

In May 2012, SMART recognised that it was a mistake not to go through the IPK process and submitted the IPK application. Officials of the Forestry Offices of West Kalimantan Province and Kapuas Hulu District deployed three teams to survey the 2,449 ha. The surveys concluded that there had been no commercially valuable timber in the 2,449 ha, confirming the SMART team's finding that there had been no need for the IPK licence in these areas after all.

"While the survey confirmed that IPK licences were not necessary, we acknowledge that this does not vindicate the company for clearing land without the due IPK process. We take responsibility for this mistake as the IPK process and our own SOPs were not complied with. Moving forward, we have taken the opportunity to tighten our SOPs to ensure stricter compliance," said Mr Daud Dharsono, President Director, SMART.

Moving forward

SMART will be implementing tighter SOPs which will provide guidance and clarity in decisions pertaining to land clearance. These will be cascaded through the entire organisation. SMART will be implementing training programmes to ensure understanding of the SOPs and will use this opportunity to remind all field officers to comply with SOPs and conduct the required due diligence.

Added Mr Dharsono, "We are accountable for our actions and are grateful for the commitment of our partners, despite this incident and will continue to forge ahead with our collaboration."

SMART remains committed to playing a leading role in developing a strong multi-stakeholder platform to develop solutions for sustainable palm oil production which involve conserving the forests, creating much needed employment and ensuring the long-term growth of the palm oil industry which is a vital part of the Indonesian economy.

In Case There Are No Efforts for Objection, the Reporteds in Edible Oil Cartel Must Pay Fine

Case of Musim Mas, Wilmar, SMART, etc.

 

Source: http://eng.kppu.go.id/in-case-there-are-no-efforts-for-objection-the-reporteds-in-edible-oil-cartel-must-pay-fine/

KPPU has received neither official summons nor notice from the District Court regarding any Objections of the Reported Business Players relaas in the case No. 24/KPPU-I/2009 concerning edible oil cartel which was proven as having violated Article 4 (abuse of oligopolistic position), Article 5 (price agreement) and Article 11 (arrangement of supply to control/increase price) of Law Number 5 of 1999 concerning Prohibition against Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition.
As known, Article 44 of Law No. 5/1999 regulates that:
(1) Within 30 days upon receipt by the business player of the Commission’s notice on judgment, the business player shall be obligated to comply with the judgment and submit the report thereof to the Commission;
(2) The business player may submit objection to the District Court no later than 14 days upon receipt of the said notice on judgment.
Efforts for Objection are legal rights regulated by the Law specially provided for Reported business players that are not satisfied with KPPU’s judgment. Nevertheless, KPPU will be consistent to defense its judgment in the hearing of objections if only the legal efforts are taken. However, if the judgment is accepted, KPPU will facilitate the enforcement of this judgment willingly by the related business player.
The excerpt and copy of judgment in this case of edible oil cartel have been received by all reporteds, i.e. 21 business players. Therefore, based on Article 44 of Law Number 5 of 1999 concerning Prohibition against Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition, the reporteds shall be obligated to comply with the judgment that has been handed down by the Commission, except that they explicitly object through the District Court (PN) at the legal domicile of each Reported.
The data show that PT Bina Karya Prima, PT Tunas Baru Lampung, Tbk, PT Pacific and Palmindo Industri, received excerpt and copy of judgment on 8^th June 2010, so that the deadline for submission of objections shall be until 28^th June 2010.
PT Multimas Nabati Asahan, PT Sinar Alam Permai, PT Wilmar Nabati Indonesia, PT Multi Nabati Sulawesi, PT Agrindo Indah Persada, PT Permata Hijau Sawit, PT Nagamas Palmoil Lestari, PT Nubika Jaya, and PT Berlian Eka Sakti Tangguh received them on 9^th June and may submit objections by 29^th June 2010.
PT Musim Mas, PT Intibenua Perkasatama, PT Megasurya Mas, PT Agro Makmur Raya, PT Mikie Oleo Nabati Industri, and PT Indo Karya Internusa received them on 10^th June and have opportunity to submit objections by 30^th June 2010.
Meanwhile, PT Smart, Tbk, PT Salim Ivomas Pratama, and PT Asian Agro Agung Jaya received them on 15^th June, so that they may submit objections by 5^th July 2010.

Palm Oil Cartel Case [Wilmar, Musim Mas, SMART, Salim]

Wilmar, Musim Mas, SMART, Salim

 

Source: http://eng.kppu.go.id/palm-oil-cartel-case/

 

The Commission for The Supervisory of Business Competition (KPPU) has performed investigation and has set verdict on the case number: 24/KPPU-I/2009 of alleged violation against Article 4, Article 5, and Article 11 of Law No. 5 Year 1999 concerning Prohibition of  Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition. Alleged violation is related to the Palm Oil Industry in Indonesia. Assembly Commission in this case consists of Ir. Dedie S.Martadisastra, SE, MM, as Chairman of the Assembly, Yoyo Arifardhani, SH, MM LL.M and Didik Akhmadi, Ak., M. Com. respectively as members.

Based on the investigation, the firms suspected of committing an violation and was determined as reported is as follows:

1. PT Multimas Vegetable Asahan, (Reported I);

2. PT Sinar Alam Permai, (Reported Party II);

3. PT Wilmar Bio Indonesia, (Reported Party III);

4. PT Multi Nabati Sulawesi, (Reported Party IV);

5. Agrindo PT Indah Persada, (Reported V);

6. PT Musim Mas, (Reported Party VI);

7. PT Intibenua Perkasatama, (Reported Party VII);

8. PT Megasurya Mas, (Reported Party VIII);

9. PT Agro Makmur Raya, (Reported IX);

10. PT Mikie Oleo Vegetable Industry, (Party X);

11. PT Indo Karya Internusa, (Reported XI);

12. PT Permata Hijau Sawit, (Party XII);

13. PT Nagamas Palmoil Lestari (Reported XIII);

14. PT Nubika Jaya, (Reported Party IV);

15. PT Smart, Tbk, (Reported V);

16. PT Salim (Reported XVI);

17. PT Bina Karya Prima, (Reported XVII);

18. PT Tunas New Lampung Tbk, (Reported XVIII);

19. PT Berlian Eka Sakti Tangguh, (Reported Party IX);

20. PT Pacific Palmoil Industry, (Reported XX);

21. PT Asian Agro Agung Jaya, (Reported XI).

Case No. 24/KPPU-I/2009 begins with the monitoring activities undertaken by the Secretariat of the Commission and reported in Commission Meeting September 15, 2009. Then the Commission decided to follow up monitoring result to the Preliminary Investigation.

KPPU assess the cooking oil industry is an industry that has strategic value because it serves as one of the basic needs of Indonesian society. Development of the cooking oil industry in Indonesia has put the cooking oil with palm oil as raw material commodities to the most widely consumed by society. It is caused by the low availability of raw materials other than oil palm. In addition, the characteristics of palm oil has a wide range of derivative products has also experienced growth including the palm oil industry. However, the cooking oil industry market structure is oligopoly has pushed the behavior of some business operators cooking oil producers to determine the movement of prices so that prices are not responsive to the CPO price movements, whereas CPO is the main ingredient of the oil. This is reflected in the time period 2007 to 2009. On the basis of this, there were indications KPPU suspected violation of Article 4, Article 5 and Article 11 of Law No. 5 Year 1999.

Based on the Preliminary Investigation Report, Report on the Follow-up, mail, documents and other evidence, including the response / defense of the Party, the Assembly Commission to assess and conclude whether there is any violation of Law No. 5 Year 1999 which conducted by the Reported Party.

Before concluding whether there is any violation, The Assembly Commission considered the following:

1. Relevant Market;

• Based on the highly visible product characteristics there are significant differences between bulk cooking oil and branded cooking oil.
• Furthermore, besides differences in the characteristics, the Assembly Commission is also consider with the differences in price levels between bulk cooking oil and branded cooking oil where branded cooking oil have a higher price level compared with bulk cooking oil.
• Differences in price levels of both products greatly affect the product buyer market segments, where branded cooking oil is more widely consumed by the consumers belonging to middle and upper, while the bulk cooking oil is more widely consumed by the consumers belonging to the lower middle.
• The difference in cooking oil buyer segment is reinforced by the conclusions the review, conducted by The Nielsen Company (filed by the defense Reported XVI) which states that consumers in large cities with high income tend to consume only bottled cooking oil (branded). This proves the fact that there are differences between consumer segments cooking oil containers.
• Differences consumer market segments both products because of differences of the characteristics and level of cooking oil product prices, especially for the analysis were conducted only on product branded cooking oil the premium of each Party to be compared as equals.
• Therefore, these facts prove that the bulk cooking oil and cooking oil containers (branded) in the case is not in the same market.
• In connection with determining the geographic market, the Assembly concurred with the Commission LHPL geographic market in which covers the whole of Indonesia. It was based on the fact of the ability of each Party to sell in other regions outside the territory concerned production of cooking oil.
• In connection with these geographic markets, XIII Party in the defense or a response stating that the sales data submitted by the sales data for purposes outside the territory of Indonesia (export) because Reported XIII only produce most of the cooking oil or more than 99% for export purposes . Therefore, on the basis of these responses as well as defense or evidence submitted by the Assembly Commission XIII Party believes that the data does not need to be considered for further analysis.

2. About the Producers and the Characteristics of Oil Palm Industry in Indonesia

• Before discussing about the market structure of cooking oil palm in Indonesia, the Assembly Commission to outline facts related to the characteristics of producers of cooking oil palm in Indonesia, where according LHPL company stated that the comparison between the integrated palm oil (upstream to downstream) with a company that is not integrated as follows, integrated by 68% and 32% are not integrated.
• Assembly Commission assess Reported that there were several affiliated with each other and / or joined in a group of businessmen who have business activities ranging from integrated oil palm plantation, palm oil processing to produce cooking oil. Furthermore, when mapped the business group associated with this case are as follows:

Business Group Wilmar Group (Reported):

1. PT Multimas Vegetable shavings

2. PT Sinar Alam Permai

3. PT Wilmar Bio Indonesia

4. PT Wilmar Bio Sulawesi

Five. PT Indah Persada Agrindo

Musim Mas Group (Reported):

1. PT Musim Mas

2. PT Intibenua Perkasatama

3. PT Megasurya Mas

4. PTAgro Raya Makmur

5. PT Mikie Oleo Vegetable Industry

6. PT Indo Karya Internusa

Permata Hijau Group (Reported):

1. PT Permata Hijau Sawit

2. PT Nubika Jaya

Sinar Mas Group (Reported): PT Smart, Tbk

Salim Group (Reported): PT Salim

Sungai Budi Group (Reported): PT Tunas New Lampung Tbk

BEST Group (Reported): PT Berlian Eka Sakti Tangguh

HSA Group (Teralpor):

1.PT Pacific Palmindo Industry

2.PT Asian Agro Agung Jaya

3.PT Bina Karya Prima

• Characteristics of palm oil industry which tends integrated in order to generate its own power input and output control over the product because it has the power to become the supplier of the product itself and become a seller for its own products. In addition, the integrated oil companies have purchasing power (buying power) and power sales (selling power) compared to companies that are not integrated.
• Based on the evidence the Commission Council to know the Reported production capacity.
• Furthermore, if the company is separated between the producers of bulk cooking oil containers with cooking oil (branded), it can be divided as follows:

Bulk Edible Oil Manufacturers

1.Wilmar Group

2.Musim Mas Group

3.Permata Hijau Group

4.Sinar Mas Group / PT Smart, Tbk

5.Sungai Budi Group / PT Tunas New Lampung

6.BEST Group

7.PT Pacific Palmindo Industry

8.PT Asian Agro Agung Jaya

Manufacturers of Edible Oil Packaging (branded):

1.Wilmar group

2.Musim Mas Group

3.Sinar Mas Group / PT Smart Tbk

4.Salim Group / PT Salim

5.PT Bina Karya Prima

6.Sungai Budi Group / PT Tunas New Lampung

7.PT Asian Agro Agung Jaya

• That the further to the division of markets between bulk cooking oil and cooking oil containers (branded) was compared with the total national consumption of the Assembly Commission know their market share – both for the individual product Bulk Cooking Oil and Edible Oil Packaging (branded).
• On the basis of this, the Assembly Commission believes that good cooking oil market structure of bulk and packaged (branded) is an oligopoly, because only mastered by a few businesses, namely:
• Wilmar Group, Musim Mas Group, PT Smart, Tbk and PT Asian Agro Agung Jaya (2007) or PT Berlian Eka Sakti Tangguh (2008) for bulk cooking oil.
• PT Salim, Wilmar Group, PT Smart, Tbk, and PT Bina Karya Prima for packaging cooking oil (branded).

3. About the Level of Market Concentration;

• There is a cooking oil sales data from the Party so that the data is more indicative of the fact because it reflects the realization of their respective Reported sales.
• Based on data from the Reported sales volume compared with the total national consumption data are used to measure the concentration of cooking oil market in Indonesia, namely:

Bulk Cooking Oil;

Year	CR4	HHI
2007	59.15%	1160.222
2008	60.13%	1400.921

Edible oil packaging (branded);

Year	CR4	HHI
2007	98%	3951.37
2008	97%	4190.62

• Based on the calculation of market concentration, then by using the approach of the Commission Regulation No. 1 Year 2009 About Pranotifikasi Merger, Consolidation and Acquisition and FTC Horizontal Merger Guidelines can be concluded that the bulk cooking oil market is concentrated enough (moderately concentrated) while packing oil (branded) very concentrated (highly concentrated) with an increasing trend.

4. About Price Parallelism;

• In determining whether there is any parallelism price in an industry can be done by statistical methods that test Homogeneity of Variance.
• The statistical tests conducted to compare the variance of the price of cooking oil each company, so they can find the same pattern of price movements between companies. If the price changes of every businesses have a probability below 5%, then Ho is rejected and no price parallelism, but on the contrary, if the probability value greater than 5%, then change the price variation between the same company or no price parallelism.
• Therefore, Homogeneity of variance test to be done on the selling price of cooking oil producers (the Reported) to discover whether there is any price parallelism.
• Based on the test probability value, the Assembly Commission believes that there is a fact that there is parallelism in the market price of bulk and bottled cooking oil (branded) because the probability value greater than 5%.
• In connection with a response or defense Reported XV who stated that price parallelism is not enough to prove the existence of price fixing or cartel price, then the Commission Council needs to give special consideration or explanation on indirect evidence.

5. About Indirect Evidence;

• In the competition law of evidence, proving the existence of a cartel can be done by using only indirect evidence.
• In this case, indirect evidence in the form;

i. Evidence of Communication (communication evidence):

Evidence of communication can be a fact of attendance and / or communications among competitors notwithstanding the absence of the substance of the meeting and / or communication. In this case, attendance and / or communications either directly or indirectly made by the Party on February 29, 2008 and dated February 9, 2009. Even in the meetings and / or communication is discussed, among others, about the price, production capacity, and production cost structure.

ii. Evidence of the economy (economics evidence):

There are 2 (two) types of economic evidence is evidence related to the structure and behavior. In this case, the cooking oil industry both bulk and packaged to have a concentrated market structure in some businesses (oligopoly). The economic evidence in the form of behavior reflected in the existence of price parallelism and facilitating practices carried out through price signaling in the promotion in the not same.

• Practice proving the existence of a cartel by using indirect evidence from these cases is reflected in several countries including Steel Cartel Case (Brazil), São Paulo Case Airlines (Brazil).

6. Loss Consumer

• That on LHPL note a decrease of CPO prices very significantly during the period April 2008 to December 2008.
• That the decline in CPO prices were not responded proportionally by the Party in the sale price of cooking oil either bulk or packaged (branded).
• That no responsive movement of oil prices set the Party on the decline in CPO prices has resulted in losses for consumers to obtain the price of cooking oil is lower because the contribution of palm oil as the main raw material is 87% of the total production cost of cooking oil.
• That the facts mentioned above, the Assembly Commission can measure the consumer loss by calculating the difference between the average sales price of cooking oil with an average cost of each CPO Reported.
• That the Assembly Commission subsequently comparing the difference between the average price at the period January 2007 until March 2008 with the period April 2008 to December 2008.
• That based on these calculations, the fact of Assembly Commission obtained customer losses during the period April 2008 until December 2008 at least Rp. 1.270.263.632.175 (one trillion two hundred seventy billion two hundred and sixty-three million six hundred thirty two thousand one hundred seventy-five rupiah) for packaging and cooking oil products amounted to USD. 374 298 034 526 (three hundred and seventy-four billion two hundred ninety eight million, thirty-four thousand five hundred and twenty six rupiah) for bulk cooking oil products.

Considering that in this case, the Commission Council found facts unavailability of data production and palm oil trade volume in the domestic market. Therefore, the Commission Council recommended to the Commission to provide advice to the Department of Trade and the Ministry of Industry to promote the availability of such data because it is very beneficial to the supervision, training and development of the relevant industries to national economic interests

Based on the evidence, facts and conclusions and to Article 43 paragraph (3) of Law No. 5 Year 1999, the Commission Council decided:

1. Stating Reported I: PT Multimas Vegetable shavings, Reported Party II: PT Sinar Alam Permai, Reported Party III: PT Wilmar Bio Indonesia, Reported Party IV: PT Multi Nabati Sulawesi, Reported Party V: PT Indah Persada Agrindo, Reported Party VI: PT Musim Mas, Reported VII: PT Intibenua Perkasatama, Reported Party VIII: PT Megasurya Mas, Reported Party IX: PT Agro Makmur Raya, Party X: PT Mikie Oleo Vegetable Industry, Reported XI: PT Indo Karya Internusa, Party XV: PT Smart, Tbk, Reported XIX: PT Berlian Eka Sakti Tangguh, and Reported XXI: PT Asian Agro Agung Jaya legally and convincingly violating Article 4 of Law No. 5 Year 1999 for bulk cooking oil market;
2. Stating Reported I: PT Multimas Vegetable shavings, Reported Party II: PT Sinar Alam Permai, Reported Party IV: PT Multi Nabati Sulawesi, Party XV: PT Smart, Tbk, Reported XVI: PT Salim, and Reported XVII: PT Bina Karya Prima legally and convincingly violating Article 4 of Law No. 5 Year 1999 for bottled cooking oil market;
3. Stating Reported XII: PT Permata Hijau Sawit, Reported XIII: PT Nagamas Palmoil Lestari, Reported XIV: PT Nubika Jaya, Party XVIII: New PT Tunas Lampung Tbk, and Reported XX: PT Pacific Industrial Palmindo not proven violating Article 4 of Law No. 5 Year 1999 in the market for bulk cooking oil;
4. Stating Reported X: PT Mikie Oleo Vegetable Industry, Party XVIII: PT Tunas new Lampung Tbk, and Reported XXI: PT Asian Agro Agung Jaya was not proven violating Article 4 of Law No. 5 Year 1999 in the packaging market cooking oil;
5. Stating Reported Stating I: PT Multimas Vegetable shavings, Reported Party II: PT Sinar Alam Permai, Reported Three: PT Wilmar Bio Indonesia, Reported Party IV: PT Multi Nabati Sulawesi, Reported Party V: PT Indah Persada Agrindo, Reported VI PT Musim Mas , Reported Party VII: PT Intibenua Perkasatama, Reported Party VIII: PT Megasurya Mas, Reported Party IX: PT Agro Makmur Raya, Party X: PT Mikie Oleo Vegetable Industry, Reported XI: PT Indo Karya Internusa, Reported XII PT Permata Hijau Sawit, Reported XIV : PT Nubika Jaya, Party XV: PT Smart, Tbk, Party XVIII: New PT Tunas Lampung Tbk, Reported XIX: PT Berlian Eka Sakti Tangguh, Reported XX: PT Pacific Palmindo Reported Industrial and XXI: PT Asian Agro Agung Jaya legally and convincingly violating Article 5 of Law No. 5 Year 1999 for bulk cooking oil market;
6. Stating Reported I: PT Multimas Vegetable shavings, Reported Party II: PT Sinar Alam Permai, Reported Party IV: PT Multi Nabati Sulawesi, Party X: PT Mikie Oleo Vegetable Industry, Party XV: PT Smart, Tbk, Reported XVI: PT Salim Pratama, and Reported XVII: PT Bina Karya Prima, Party XVIII: a new PT Tunas Lampung Tbk and Reported XXI: PT Asian Agro Agung Jaya legally and convincingly violating Article 5 of Law No. 5 Year 1999 for packaging cooking oil market;
7. Stating Reported XIII: PT Nagamas Palmoil Lestari not proven violating Article 5 of Law No. 5 Year 1999 for bulk cooking oil market;
8. Stating Reported I: PT Multimas Vegetable shavings, Reported Party II: PT Sinar Alam Permai, Reported Party IV: PT Multi Nabati Sulawesi, Party X: PT Mikie Oleo Vegetable Industry, Party XV: PT Smart, Tbk, Reported XVI: PT Salim Pratama, and Reported XVII: PT Bina Karya Prima, Party XVIII: a new PT Tunas Lampung Tbk and Reported XXI: PT Asian Agro Agung Jaya legally and convincingly violating Article 11 of Law No. 5 Year 1999 for packaging cooking oil market;
9. Stating Reported I: PT Multimas Vegetable shavings, Reported Party II: PT Sinar Alam Permai, Reported Party III: PT Wilmar Bio Indonesia, Party IV: PT Multi Nabati Sulawesi, Reported Party V: PT Indah Persada Agrindo, Reported Party VI: PT Musim Mas, Reported VII: PT Intibenua Perkasatama, Reported Party VIII: PT Megasurya Mas, Reported Party IX: PT Agro Makmur Raya, Party X: PT Mikie Oleo Vegetable Industry, Reported XI: PT Indo Karya Internusa, Reported XII: PT Permata Hijau Sawit, Reported XIII: PT Nagamas Palmoil Lestari, Reported XIV: PT Nubika Jaya, Party XV: PT Smart, Tbk, Party XVIII: New PT Tunas Lampung Tbk, Reported XIX: PT Berlian Eka Sakti Tangguh, Reported XX: PT Pacific Palmindo Reported Industrial and XXI: PT Asian Agro Agung Jaya was not proven violating Article 11 of Law No. 5 Year 1999 for bulk cooking oil market;
10. Punishing Party I: PT Multimas Vegetable shavings to pay a fine of Rp. 25,000,000,000.00 to be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of violations in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition;
11. Punishing Party II: PT Sinar Alam Permai to pay a fine of Rp. 20,000,000,000.00 to be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of violations in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition);
12. Punishing Party III: PT Wilmar Bio Indonesia to pay a fine of Rp. 1,000,000,000.00 should be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of Violation in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition);
13. Punishes Reported IV: PT Multi Nabati Sulawesi to pay a fine of Rp. 25,000,000,000.00 to be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of violations in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition);
14. Punishes Reported V: PT Indah Persada Agrindo to pay a fine of Rp. 25,000,000,000.00 to be deposited into State Treasury as income deposit fine of Violation in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition);
15. Punishes Reported VI: PT Musim Mas to pay a fine of Rp. 15,000,000,000.00 to be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of violations in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition);
16. Punishes Reported VII: PT Intibenua Perkasatama to pay a fine of Rp. 2,000,000,000.00 should be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of Violation in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition);
17. Punishes Reported VIII: PT Megasurya Mas to pay a fine of Rp. 15,000,000,000.00 to be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of violations in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition);
18. Punishes Reported Party IX: PT Agro Makmur Raya to pay a fine of Rp. 5,000,000,000.00 should be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of Violation in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition);
19. Punishes Reported X: PT Mikie Oleo Bio Industry to pay a fine of Rp. 20,000,000,000.00 to be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of violations in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition);
20. Punishing Party XI: PT Indo Karya Internusa to pay a fine of Rp. 15,000,000,000.00 to be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of violations in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition);
21. Punishes Reported XII: PT Permata Hijau Sawit to pay a fine of Rp. 5,000,000,000.00 should be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of Violation in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition);
22. Punishes Reported XIV: PT Nubika Jaya to pay a fine of Rp. 2,000,000,000.00 should be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of Violation in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition);
23. Punishing Party XV: PT Smart, Tbk to pay a fine of Rp. 25,000,000,000.00 that must be remitted to the State Treasury as Violation Fines Income Deposit on the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission of the Government with the Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Violation Fines on Competition Field);
24. Punishes Reported XVI: PT Salim to pay a fine of Rp. 25,000,000,000.00 to be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of Violation in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition);
25. Punishes Reported XVII: PT Bina Karya Prima to pay a fine of Rp. 25,000,000,000.00 to be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of violations in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition);
26. Punishing Party XVIII: New PT Tunas Lampung Tbk to pay a fine of Rp. 10,000,000,000.00 to be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of violations in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition)
27. Punishes Reported XIX: PT Berlian Eka Sakti Tangguh to pay a fine of Rp. 10,000,000,000.00 to be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of violations in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission by the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field Competition)
28. Punishes Reported XX: PT Pacific Palmindo Industries to pay a fine of Rp. 10,000,000,000.00 to be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of violations in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition)
29. Punishes Reported XXI: PT Asian Agro Agung Jaya to pay a fine of Rp. 10,000,000,000.00 to be remitted to the State Treasury as income deposit fine of violations in the field of Business Competition Unit through the Business Competition Supervisory Commission with the Government Bank Code 423 755 Revenue (Revenue Fines Violations in the Field of Business Competition)

Investigation and preparation of the decision on case No.. 24/KPPU-I/2009 conducted by KPPU with the principles of independence, that is not impartial anyone because KPPU role as carrier mandate of monitoring of the implementation of Law No. 5 / 1999 of trying to realize the same business certainty for every business actor and to ensure fair competition and effective.

The verdict was read in the Assembly Commission which declared open for public on Tuesday, on May 4, 2010 in Investigation Room III, 1st floor KPPU Building, Jl. Ir. H. Juanda No.36, Central Jakarta.

MONOPOLI GULA: KPPU jatuhkan denda Rp25 miliar ke Wilmar Group

MONOPOLI GULA: KPPU jatuhkan denda Rp25 miliar ke Wilmar Group

Sumber: http://www.bisnis.com/articles/monopoli-gula-kppu-jatuhkan-denda-rp25-miliar-ke-wilmar-group

Taufikul Basari

Minggu, 03 Juni 2012 | 11:49 WIB 

JAKARTA: Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU) akhirnya menjatuhkan sanksi denda administratif Rp25 miliar kepada Wilmar Group yang mengakuisisi PT Duta Sugar International karena belum melakukan notifikasi.

Kepala KPPU Tadjuddin Noer Said mengatakan penjatuhan sanksi dilakukan setelah komisi memberikan surat pemberitahuan kepada perusahaan tersebut namun tak mendapat tanggapan. Padahal, akuisisi dilakukan pada Juli tahun lalu.

Berdasar pasal 28 jo. pasal 29 UU No. 5 tahun 1999 tentang Penggabungan, Peleburan, dan Pengambilalihan, aksi perusahaan itu termasuk yang wajib melakukan pemberitahuan atau notifikasi.

Pasal 29 menyebutkan penggabungan atau peleburan badan usaha, atau pengambilalihan saham yang berakibat nilai aset dan atau nilai penjualannya melebihi jumlah tertentu, wajib diberitahukan kepada Komisi, selambat-lambatnya 30 hari sejak tanggal aksi korporasi.

Sanksi itu sendiri sesuai dengan Peraturan Pemerintah No. 57 tahun 2010 tentang penggabungan atau peleburan badan usaha dan pengambilalihan saham perusahaan yang dapat mengakibatkan terjadinya praktik monopoli dan persaingan usaha tidak sehat.

Menurut Tadjuddin, jika pelaku usaha tidak menyampaikan pemberitahuan tertulis maka dikenakan sanksi berupa denda administratif Rp1 miliar untuk setiap hari keterlambatan, dengan denda secara keseluruhan paling tinggi Rp25 miliar.

“Jika ini tidak mendapat tanggapan, kami ajukan ke pengadilan,” ujarnya hari ini, 3 Juni 2012. KPPU, katanya, telah beberapa kali mengirim surat maupun mendatangi kantor perusahaan, namun tidak mendapat jawaban.

Komisi, katanya, tidak tahu mengapa perusahaan itu tidak melakukan pemberitahuan kepada KPPU padahal regulasi secara terang mengharuskannya.

Kepala Biro Hubungan Masyarakat dan Hukum KPPU Ahmad Junaidi mengatakan perusahaan yang memiliki kewajiban melakukan notifikasi atas aksi korporasinya yakni dengan nilai aset sebesar Rp2,5 triliun dan ataupun nilai omzet (penjualan) mencapai Rp5 triliun.

Penghitungan nilai omzet, jelas Junaidi, tidak hanya pada gabungan dua perusahaan yang melebur namun juga dilihat afiliasi atau kelompok usaha secara keseluruhan. Akuisisi dilakukan anak perusahaan dari kelompok Wilmar, Wealth Anchor, yang berkedudukan di Singapura.

“Kelompok Wilmar Group ini diketahui di Indonesia adalah produsen gula rafinasi yang besar yang jika dihitung secara keseluruhan memenuhi batas treshold,” ujarnya.

Berdasar kewenangan komisi sebagaimana tercantum dalam UU, salah satunya KPPU dapat menetapkan pembatalan atas penggabungan atau peleburan badan usaha dan pengambilalihan saham. Namun, menurut Tadjuddin, pembatalan hanya dilakukan jika memang terjadi praktik monopoli.

Duet Kuok-Martua
Wilmar International Ltd merupakan raksasa komoditas global milik keluarga Robert Kuok (Malaysia) dan Martua Sitorus (Indonesia). Kuok dikenal sebagai raja gula dan sawit Asia Tenggara. Akuisisi Duta Sugar adalah bagian dari ekspansi bisnis gula Wilmar.

Dalam dokumen presentasi Chief Financial Officer Wilmar Ho Kiam Kong kepada Bursa Efek Singapura disebutkan bahwa perseroan tahun ini mengalokasikan belanja modal US$1 miliar untuk ekspansi bisnis gula dan empat segmen bisnis lainnya.

Bisnis mencatat gula adalah segmen bisnis baru Wilmar yang mulai digarap serius sejak semester II/ 2010. Saat itu, Wilmar mencaplok 100% saham tiga perusahaan di bisnis manis tersebut.

Ketiga perusahaan itu yakni produsen gula terintegrasi terbesar di Australia Sucrogen Ltd, produsen gula rafinasi PT Jawamanis Rafinasi, dan broker gula di Singapura, Windsor & Brook Trading.

Di Indonesia, Wilmar juga masuk ke proyek food estate Merauke dan membentuk usaha patungan dengan Elevance Renewable Sciences Inc (Inggris) guna membangun pabrik biorefinery di Surabaya.

Strategi pertumbuhan anorganik tersebut kembali ditempuh pada tahun berikutnya dengan mengakuisisi produsen gula rafinasi Duta Sugar International senilai US$105 juta.

Desember lalu Wilmar juga menuntaskan akuisisi salah satu pabrik gula terbesar di Australia, Proserpine Cooperative Sugar Milling Association Ltd senilai US$122 juta.

Junaidi mengatakan, kewajiban melaporkan akuisisi itu penting karena menjadi awal kajian oleh komisi untuk menilai apakah aksi korporasi itu menyebabkan inefisiensi atau terciptanya konsentrasi pasar, yang dapat merugikan konsumen. (Bsi)