THE SUHARTOS WIN ANOTHER DEFAMATION SUIT

C O N F I D E N T I A L JAKARTA 000433 SIPDIS SIPDIS DEPT FOR EAP, EAP/MTS, EAP/MLS, EAP/PD, INL FOR BOULDIN DEPT FOR EEB/IFD/OMA DOJ/OPDAT FOR LEHMANN/ALEXANDRE NSC FOR E.PHU E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/02/2018 TAGS: PGOV KJUS KCOR ID SUBJECT: THE SUHARTOS WIN ANOTHER DEFAMATION SUIT REF: A. JAKARTA 377 ¶B. JAKARTA 208 ¶C. 07 JAKARTA 3378 ¶D. 07 JAKARTA 3173 Classified By: Pol/C Joseph Legend Novak, reasons 1.4(b+d). ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: A Jakarta court has awarded Tommy Suharto--son of the late president--a USD $550,000 defamation award in a suit against a state agency. Tommy filed the defamation suit in response to a civil case alleging that he had cheated in a land deal, one of several ongoing legal actions against Suharto's wayward son. While the ruling may be overturned on appeal, the absurd verdict--similar to one rendered against TIME Magazine--demonstrates the continued influence of the Suharto family. END SUMMARY. A VICTORY FOR TOMMY ¶2. (SBU) The South Jakarta District Court on February 28 threw out a civil suit filed against Tommy Suharto and ordered the plaintiff to pay Tommy USD $550,000 for "defamation of character." The State Logistics Agency (BULOG) filed the suit in 2007 in hopes of recovering Rp 250 billion (USD $28 million at current exchange rates of Rp9000-USD) that they say Tommy bilked them out of in a 1995 land deal. ¶3. (SBU) The judges sided with Tommy, however, who argued that BULOG had actually made a profit on the deal. In an incredible statement, the court called Tommy--who was previously sentenced to 10 years for ordering the murder of a judge and has a well-earned thuggish reputation--a businessman with "an international reputation" who deserved compensation for damages done to "his good name." BULOG has not announced whether it will appeal either the original civil case on the land deal or the defamation ruling, but it probably will. ONE OF MANY LEGAL ACTIONS ¶4. (SBU) The BULOG case is just one of the series of legal actions currently underway involving Tommy, including: -- A civil suit filed by the Attorney General's Office (AGO) seeking to recover USD $50 million that Tommy allegedly scammed in a 2000 land deal. Tommy was convicted of corruption in the case back in 2000, but the conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court. Tommy later went to prison for ordering the murder of the judge who originally convicted him on the corruption charge (ref D),and has since been released. -- An attempt by the AGO to recover millions of dollars held by Tommy in a bank in Guernsey, UK. The money has been frozen for the past year at the request of the Attorney General's Office, but a British court has yet to determine whether the funds will be turned over to the GOI or released back to Tommy (ref D). -- An investigation into a debt-restructuring deal in which a company controlled by Tommy may have illegally reacquired--at a fraction of their actual value--assets it had earlier been forced to surrender to the GOI (ref C). -- A civil suit against Tommy's father, the late president. In January, a judge ruled that Suharto's heirs must stand in for him in the case (ref B). ¶5. (C) The current decision is similar to a 2007 ruling involving TIME magazine, which also revolved around a bizarre legal finding of "defamation." TIME lawyers recently launched an appeal with the Supreme Court to reverse the decision ordering the company to pay an unprecedented USD $100 million in damages to the late president (ref A). NOT GREAT FOR JUDICIARY'S REPUTATION ¶6. (C) The patently absurd decision to award defamation damages to Tommy reinforces the widely-held perception that Indonesia's judiciary is up for sale. The size of the defamation award sends a chilling message to other plaintiffs who seek to win money from Tommy in the courts. The verdict makes very clear that--despite the recent death of the family patriarch--the Suhartos still have considerable political influence in Indonesia. HUME