JAKARTA – Capital market analysts, Pardomuan Sihombing said that the decision of the judges of Corruption (Corruption) in a case of IM2, causing fears of capital market investors. Because the regulations are not clear can ensnare anyone who is doing business in Indonesia.
“It could happen (investors will fear) that the decision was negative, meaning that is associated with the regulation of the telecommunications industry,” said Pardomuan Sihombing, told reporters on Friday (19/7).
It is said, that investors will invest into doubt whether the investment fund to be back or not, when the company suddenly entangled case. Doubt it, he added, is very clearly threatens the entire industry.
“Investors need legal certainty, because that’s what makes the industry rules become clear, so as to ensure the development of the telecommunications industry,” he said.
Pardomuan added that the symptoms have not been perceived concerns, the article of the legal process is not over. However, if there is already a binding verdict and declared IM2 guilty, then the impact will be felt.
“We all expect the final result will be better,” said Pardomuan.
As information, on Monday (8/7) Corruption Court sentenced former Director of IM2, Indar Atmanto to 4 years imprisonment with a fine of Rp200 million with subsidiary imprisonment of 3 months. Judge fines also punish IM2 pay Rp1, 3 trillion. Judges-network cooperation Indosat IM2 there are elements of corruption.
This ruling a major impact, as almost all sectors of the telecommunications businesses registered as a public company is also running a similar business model. Including PT Indosat Tbk, PT Telkomsel, PT XL Axiata Tbk, PT Smartfren Telecom, PT Bakrie Telecom Tbk and other telecommunications operators.
In fact, the communication sector alone contributes to Rp11, 8 trillion in revenues and in 2012. This figure is the biggest revenue for Indonesia in addition to the energy and mineral resources.
Responding to the verdict, Indonesian Infocom Society (Mastel) and the Indonesian Telecommunications Regulatory Body (BRTI) have reported the presiding judge to the Judicial Commission.
Mastel judge there are allegations of violations of the code of conduct by the presiding judge in the case. “There are some points that filed a complaint to the