Istimewa
NON-performing loans in banking are not merely statistical figures that damage portfolios. Non- performing loans are red flags fluttering loudly.
They signal that something is not normal within the banking ecosystem. The question is, has the assessment of non-performing loans in a bank been done correctly and honestly, distinguishing which stem from business risk and which arise from malicious intent (mens rea) or manipulation? The reason is that there is a tendency for law enforcement officers (APH) to act blindly, hastily naming bankers as suspects simply because they are deemed to have committed a criminal offense.
Thousands of credit officers at state-owned banks (Himbara banks), regionally owned banks (BPD), and of course rural banks (BPR) are now feeling extremely anxious. Especially since APH appear to be pursuing ever- increasing and larger case targets. Almost certainly, some fault will be found, even if it is merely a minor procedural issue, such as the color of the pen used to sign a credit approval.
According to data from Infobank Research Bureau (birI), the position of Indonesia’s banking non-performing loans as of November 2025 stood at 2.21% or equivalent to Rp183.73 trillion. Potential non-performing loans reached 9.22% (loan at risk/LAR). More troubling still, non- performing loans have affected the MSME sector. Thus, non-performing loans exist across various segments.
Meanwhile, total banking credit during the same period reached Rp8,314 trillion.
By nature, banks will inevitably have non-performing loans; this is normal. There is no need to panic. Yet recently, state-owned bankers have been losing sleep, haunted by fears that could turn into nightmares, being struck by criminal charges, even though credit itself is a civil agreement.
In fact, Law (UU) P2SK has been in effect since 2023.
Within this law, there is an article stating that the Financial Services Authority (OJK) is mandated to conduct investigations. Therefore, if a non-performing loan occurs, whether due to business risk or fraud, at the very least OJK should conduct an examination first. If fraud is found, OJK may then forward the case files to law enforcement.
However, bankers who diligently pay their dues to OJK feel that no one stands up for them when they face non-performing loan cases. OJK should be at the forefront defending bankers. This is not without reason. OJK understands the inner workings of banks. It should not then claim that supervision is merely sampling-based or constrained by manpower shortages. These are not intelligent excuses. OJK can also request assistance from public accountants.
So far, OJK is rarely heard exercising its authority. Yet the philosophy behind the enactment of UU P2SK, particularly the article on investigations, was to prevent law enforcement officers who lack a deep understanding of banking from directly investigating credit cases faced by banks. Such investigations should first be conducted by OJK, and only afterward involve law enforcement. But now, where is OJK’s courage?
When a problematic loan arises, the first instinct should be to investigate its root cause. Based on Infobank Institute’s limited discussions grounded in experience, there are three possible scenarios. First, the debtor’s business failure, purely due to economic turbulence or mismanagement. This falls within the realm of business risk, which is inherent and reasonable in the banking world. Second, the negligence scenario. This involves credit approval processes that violate procedures and prudential banking principles. Third, the malicious intent scenario. This is the most dangerous. It begins with credit applications from debtors running bogus businesses, supported by falsified documents aimed at siphoning bank funds from the outset.
This is the critical point. The signing of the kredit agreement by directors is the final execution of a long credit analysis process. If SOP have been carried out prudently by staff and subordinate management, then the decision constitutes a business judgment made in good faith.
Based on Infobank’s records, in corruption cases, there are many irregularities in the construction of indictments. Charges are often poor in substantive analysis. This is a misleading indictment!
Take, for example, the case of PT Sri Rejeki Isman Tbk (Sritex). Currently, former directors of three BPDs, Bank Jakarta, Bank Jateng, and Bank BJB, have been named suspects. Unless they received gratuities. However, if there is no evidence and no flow of funds, then naming them as suspects without mens rea and without gratuities is clearly a wrongful strike.
Non-performing loans may reflect ordinary business failure. But they can also serve as evidence of banking crimes or corruption. The duty of law enforcement is to distinguish between the two with a sharp analytical knife, not with a blunt prosecutorial hammer. These days, fear of disbursing credit haunts bankers. Indonesia needs intelligent justice, not merely easy verdicts. Hello, OJK!
They signal that something is not normal within the banking ecosystem. The question is, has the assessment of non-performing loans in a bank been done correctly and honestly, distinguishing which stem from business risk and which arise from malicious intent (mens rea) or manipulation? The reason is that there is a tendency for law enforcement officers (APH) to act blindly, hastily naming bankers as suspects simply because they are deemed to have committed a criminal offense.
