Medan. Several names of employees and managers at Bank Mandiri were mentioned in the indictment for the alleged forgery of dozens of checks belonging to PT Toba Surimi Industries Tbk (PT TSI), with total losses reaching IDR 123.2 billion.
This fact was revealed in the first hearing with the agenda of reading the indictment against the defendant Tepi binti Oie Kak Teng (41), on Thursday (23/4/2026).
The Head of Legal Information for the North Sumatra High Prosecutor’s Office, when confirmed about this matter on Saturday (25/4/2026), stated that currently, four suspects are still at the stage of the Notification Letter for Commencement of Investigation (SPDP).
“The case files for these four suspects have not yet been submitted by the North Sumatra Police investigators to the prosecutor’s office,” he said.
Meanwhile, another suspect named Tepi binti Oie Kak Teng (41), who is said to have served as Assistant Finance Manager (Head Cashier) at PT TSI, is currently undergoing trial at the Medan District Court.
He emphasized that the handling of the case continues according to applicable legal procedures, and the prosecutor’s office is still awaiting the submission of files from the North Sumatra Police investigators for further review.
“For the defendant Tepi, her case is being tried at the Medan District Court,” he concluded.
Previously, the trial was held in Room Cakra 8 of the Medan District Court on Thursday (23/4/2026) afternoon, with the indictment read by the public prosecutor before a panel of judges chaired by Lifiana Tanjung.
In the indictment, the prosecutor detailed the alleged forgery of 54 checks committed by the defendant, including the procedural involvement of several bank employees who processed the documents.
The defendant Tepi is accused of forging the signature of the president director and withdrawing funds through transactions at Bank Mandiri Medan Balai Kota Branch.
“These actions were carried out between September 29 and October 23, 2025. Although the defendant’s authority to conduct transactions had been revoked since February 29, 2024, based on a new power of attorney from President Director Gindra Tardy to another party, the defendant continued to execute transactions on behalf of the company,” the prosecutor said in the indictment.
The prosecutor explained that the defendant first prepared internal documents such as expense proofs (cash bonds), check forms, and bank deposit or transfer slips. These documents were checked by the company’s audit and financial management departments but were never submitted to the president director for approval.
At night, the defendant allegedly forged the president director’s signature on the check forms and affixed the company stamp. The next day, the defendant went to the Bank Mandiri Medan Balai Kota Branch office carrying several checks that had been signed unlawfully.
At the bank, the defendant handed over the documents to a customer service employee, witness Winda, after first meeting with witness Dhita.
Other bank employee names were also mentioned in the indictment, including Roma Narumata Marbun as General Banker Manager, and teller Herlina who processed the fund withdrawals.
The indictment revealed that the documents submitted by the defendant went through the bank’s internal inspection stages. Witness Winda conducted an initial check and initialed them, then the documents were forwarded to Roma Narumata Marbun for further inspection before being processed by the teller.
However, the prosecutor highlighted negligence in the verification process.
“Witness Herlina did not carefully check the conformity of the signatures on the checks with the specimen signature of the president director stored at the bank,” the prosecutor stated.
Funds from PT TSI’s account were then transferred via the RTGS system to several accounts at Bank BRI according to the slips prepared by the defendant. After the transactions, the defendant borrowed the transfer slips to photograph them and sent them via an application referred to as a trading platform.
This action was repeated dozens of times, including involving the defendant’s subordinate, witness