The growth of the fintech lending industry has provided wider access to funding for the public while also opening up opportunities for investors or lenders to obtain returns from channeling funds to borrowers.
Digitalization makes the entire process faster, from account registration to project funding just through the application.
However, this convenience also requires high trust in the platform organizer. When that trust is compromised, the impact is felt not just by one or two investors, but can affect the reputation of an entire industry.
Things that are happening PT Dana Syariah Indonesia is an example of how alleged irregularities within a company can develop into a major problem involving thousands of lenders.
The Indonesian Sharia Fund Lenders Association considers that this case is not sufficiently understood as a business risk or ordinary investment failure. According to them, there are indications that point to suspicion insider fraudnamely allegations of irregularities committed by parties who understand the company’s governance, operational mechanisms and supervisory systems.
If this allegation is later proven in court, then this problem will have far wider consequences than in cases of default in general.
Determining the Suspect Becomes a New Chapter
The latest development in this matter is fixation FH as a suspect by investigators.
Based on reference documents, FH is known to have a background as a former Financial Services Authority (OJK) official and once held an important position in the digital financial services sector. Investigators said this determination was a development of the legal process against several other suspects that had previously been named.
FH is suspected of acting as a founder and advisor and is involved in a number of companies said to be affiliated with PT Dana Syariah Indonesia. Investigators also suspect nominee share ownership and involvement in various company development meetings.
However, all these allegations are still in the investigation and verification stage. In accordance with legal principles, suspect status cannot be equated with a guilty verdict before a court decision has permanent legal force.
Alleged Fictitious Projects Change the Risk Map
One of the most highlighted aspects is the alleged existence of a fictitious project.
According to investigators, there are allegations that certain projects were published via the company’s website or application to attract lenders’ interest in channeling funds. If this allegation is proven, then the problem being faced is no longer related to the borrower’s inability to pay off his obligations.
Instead, the main problem lies in the information on which investment decisions are based. In fintech lending practices, lenders usually evaluate the identity of the borrower, funding objectives, estimated profits, and the level of project risk. If the information turns out to be inconsistent with actual conditions, then the risk analysis process can no longer be carried out objectively.
The Biggest Challenge Is Loss Recovery
Apart from criminal proceedings, the victim’s biggest concern at this time is the opportunity to recover the funds that have been placed.
The reference document states that the assets that investigators managed to trace were only approx IDR 320 billionwhile the total loss mentioned reached more than IDR 2.4 trillion. Some of these assets are in the form of cash, while the rest consists of a number of property assets which are thought to be related to the suspects.
This quite large difference in value shows that the process asset tracing will be a very determining factor. Without success in tracing broader assets, the legal process has the potential to only result in a criminal verdict without being able to optimally recover all of the lender’s losses.
Don’t rely on reputation alone
This case provides a lesson that the reputation of a company or individual should not be the sole basis for making investment decisions.
Many investors feel more confident when a platform has a professional image, uses a sharia label, or involves a known figure in the financial industry.
However, all of these factors cannot replace the need to conduct an analysis of project quality, information transparency, inter-company affiliate relationships, or internal monitoring systems.
Lenders should also not place all funds on one platform. Diversification remains an effective strategy to reduce the impact if a problem occurs with one of the organizers.
The Importance of Due Diligence Before Placing Funds
Before investing, people need to get used to checking various important aspects.
Information regarding the borrower, the purpose of using the funds, payment history, collateral if available, and project progress should be studied thoroughly.
Investors also need to pay attention if a platform often offers projects with high returns but only provides very limited information regarding funding recipients or project developments.
The higher the level of transparency a platform has, the easier it is for lenders to assess the risks they may face.
Conclusion
Allegations of insider fraud, fictitious projects, and ongoing asset tracing processes show that internal corporate governance has a very important role in maintaining investor confidence.
Because the legal process is still ongoing, all allegations against the suspects will be tested through a trial mechanism.
Regardless of the final outcome, this case is a valuable lesson for all lenders to always apply the principle of caution, carry out due diligence before investing, not only rely on the platform’s reputation, and spread investments across several instruments to reduce the risk of greater losses.
