GADUH : Sidang lanjutan gugatan terhadap Dana Pangrukti Kediri di PN Kota Kediri
KEDIRI – Sidang lanjutan kasus dugaan ketidakabsahan kepengurusan Perkumpulan Sinoman Dana Pangrukti di Pengadilan Negeri (PN) Kota Kediri, kemarin tegang dan gaduh. Penasehat hukum (PH) tergugat, Edy Suwito S.H, beberapa kali emosi dan memprotes pertanyaan – pertanyaan yang diajukan PH penggugat, yaitu Samsul Arifin S.H, dan Wijono S.H. “Saya emosi ini. Karena pertanyaannya mereduksi yang disampaikan saksi. Dia (saksi,red) itu saksi fakta, bukan saksi ahli,”ujar Edy di tengah persidangan, saat saksi yang diajukannya yaitu Budi Dharma, dicecar pertanyaan oleh PH penggugat.
Untung saja, ketegangan dan kegaduhan itu segera dilerai majelis hakim, sehingga PH penggugat bisa melanjutkan pertanyaannya. Namun, beberapa kali Edy Suwito terus berusaha memprotes dan menghentikan pertanyaan yang disampaikan Syamsul Arifin dan Wijono. Sehingga beberapa kali hakim harus melerai.
Pada persidangan lanjutan Rabu (6/5/2020), itu tergugat menghadirkan saksi Budi Darma, mantan ketua Perkumpulan Dana Pangrukti. Di persidangan, Budi menjelaskan tugas formatur hanya membentuk pengurus dan 5 pengawas. Tidak ada tugas lain. Saat ditanya siapa yang disebut pengurus, Budi menjelaskan pengurus hanya ketua, sekretaris, dan bendahara. Jika ada kekosongan pengurus antarwaktu, tidak perlu rapat umum anggota, tapi cukup rapat pengurus.
Saat ditanya siapa yang dimaksud anggota pengurus dalam AD/ART, Budi menolak menjawab. Budi Darma juga tidak mengetahui mengapa sebelumnya ada pengangkatan wakil ketua Edy Laksmana, yang sebelumnya tidak ada.
Seperti diberitakan, pengurus Perkumpulan Sinoman Dana Pangrukti Kediri digugat oleh sebagian anggotanya karena dinilai kepengurusannya tidak sah dengan nilai gugatan Rp 10 miliar di PN Kota Kediri. Gugatan ini masih dalam proses persidangan dengan menghadirkan saksi-saksi dari para pihak. (mam)
PH Emotion, the Pangrukti Gaduh Fund Session
KEDIRI – Continuing trial of the alleged case of illegitimate management of the Pangrukti Dana Sinoman Association in the Kediri City District Court, yesterday was tense and rowdy. The defendant’s legal counsel (PH), Edy Suwito S.H, was emotional several times and protested the questions raised by the plaintiff’s PH, namely Samsul Arifin S.H, and Wijono S.H. “I am this emotion. Because the question is reduced by the witness. He (witness, red) is a fact witness, not an expert witness, “said Edy in the middle of the trial, when the witness he proposed, Budi Dharma, was questioned by the plaintiff’s PH.
Fortunately, the tension and commotion was immediately resolved by the judges, so that the plaintiff’s PH could continue his question. However, several times Edy Suwito continued to try to protest and stop the questions raised by Syamsul Arifin and Wijono. So that several times the judge must break up.
At the trial continued on Wednesday (05/06/2020), the defendant presented witness Budi Darma, former chairman of the Pangrukti Fund Association. At the trial, Budi explained that the task of the formator was only to form a board and five supervisors. There are no other tasks. When asked who was called the management, Budi explained that the management was only the chairman, secretary and treasurer. If there are vacancies among the administrators, there is no need for a general meeting of the members, but enough for the board meeting.
When asked who the board members meant in the Statutes / By-Laws, Budi refused to answer. Budi Darma also does not know why previously there was the appointment of deputy chairman Edy Laksmana, who previously did not exist.
As reported, the management of the Sinoman Fund Pangrukti Kediri Association was sued by some of its members because it was considered illegal by the management of a lawsuit worth Rp 10 billion in Kediri City District Court. This lawsuit is still in the process of trial by presenting witnesses from the parties. (mam)
Tinggalkan Balasan