Rahmat Wibowo's “business proposal” to turn defamation fines into state revenue, with the people who reposted @KawalRahmatwi as its case study and a 5% fee charged to the “victim”

What this document is

A 9-page Proposal Bisnis titled “Monetisasi Denda Pidana Pencemaran Nama Baik Digital sebagai Pemasukan Negara” (“Monetising criminal fines for digital defamation as state revenue”), dated 8 August 2026. It is classified as a “public policy proposal – digital economic criminal law”. It says it was “compiled by AEGIS – Academic Examiner & Guardian of Intellectual Standards”, the name Rahmat Wibowo gives the “analyses” he publishes on the InfraLoka blog. The client is “Rahmat Wibowo / InfraLoka”, and the last line reads “Copyright 2026 InfraLoka / Rahmat Wibowo”. All nine pages were posted on Rahmat Wibowo’s Instagram.

What it says

• The case study. The anonymous X account @KawalRahmatwi, which posts about Rahmat, has 63 posts. The proposal picks five, from May 2026, and lists what each one alleges:
  • Post #5, 9 May: cursing a pregnant woman, naming her and her workplace (1,400 reposts, 336,000 views).
  • Post #4, 10 May: using women’s photos without permission, framed as fictional relationships (659 reposts).
  • Post #3, 11 May: stalking someone to their workplace (600 reposts).
  • Post #2, 14 May: extortion of Rp200 million to Rp2 billion plus a legal notice (270 reposts).
  • Post #1, 17 May: a pinned FAQ (232 reposts).
  • Altogether 3,161 reposts, 9,167 likes and over 766,000 views.
• “Repost = suspect”. Every repost is counted as an act of spreading defamation, and every account that reposted as a co-perpetrator. Using the maximum fine for written defamation plus a third for using technology (Articles 433 and 441 of the new Criminal Code), that is Rp66,666,667 per person, or “Rp210,773,334,647” for the 3,161 reposts. Using slander instead (Article 434), it is Rp266,666,668 per person, or “Rp843,093,338,648”.
• The national projection. 500 viral cases a year, times 800 reposts per case, times a Rp50 million fine, times a 15% collection rate, is given as “Rp30,000,000,000,000 (Rp30 trillion)” a year.
• DENDA.ID. “Digital Enforcement for National Defamation Assets”, tagline “Every repost has legal and economic consequences”. It is a platform run in partnership with the Attorney General’s Office and the Supreme Court:
  • it crawls X, Instagram, TikTok and Facebook, and uses language models to flag insulting content;
  • it tracks who reposted each post and includes a “de-anonymization module”;
  • it auto-generates criminal complaints “in the victim’s name” and collects the fines through the Finance Ministry’s payment system;
  • it takes a “platform fee: 5% of the fines collected (from the victim/reporter)”, plus a subscription of Rp5 million a month per active case, Rp50 billion a year per region for the prosecutor’s office, and paid “data intelligence reports” for the media. Projected revenue is Rp2.4 trillion a year.
• Phases. Phase 1 picks ten high-profile cases as precedents. Phase 2 builds DENDA.ID. Phase 3, in two to five years, integrates every social media platform in real time and imposes “automatic fines through accounts linked to the national ID number (INA Digital)”.
• Its own risk check. The proposal rates the chance of “mass criminalisation of social media users” at 60–80%, says the “repost = suspect” model is very open to challenge in the Constitutional Court, warns of “regulatory capture: potential misuse to silence political opposition”, and admits the model “could be misused to silence legitimate criticism”. It scores itself 6.0/10, “Conditional Pass – Major Corrections Required”.
• The first case. Section 7.1 makes @KawalRahmatwi the precedent: file criminal complaints against the ten accounts with the most reposts and demand the maximum fine of Rp66,666,667 each “as deterrence”. The PR strategy is to “emphasise that the fines go to the state treasury, not into the victim’s pocket” and to “pick a victim with a sympathetic profile for the first case”. Section 7.2 estimates Rp2.33–38.93 billion from the 232 reposts of the pinned post alone.
• Disclosure. Section 8.2: “This report was compiled at the request of Rahmat Wibowo as the direct victim of the viral @KawalRahmatwi campaign. The author acknowledges potential bias given the client’s direct interest.”

Observations

1. The “defamation” is what this site documents. The five posts the proposal wants people fined for reposting allege that he cursed a pregnant woman, used women’s photos without permission, stalked someone and demanded billions with legal notices. These are documented here from his own posts: the curse that a pregnant former colleague’s baby be born autistic (ev-20230901-001), the poll asking his followers to pick one of four former colleagues to “love” (ev-20230901-002), and the Rp2 billion legal notice to Ibrahim Arief (ev-20260728-003). Under his own articles, slander needs the allegation to be untrue. The proposal does not say which allegation is.
2. The fines go to the state, the 5% goes to him. The PR strategy is to stress that fines go to the treasury and not into the victim’s pocket. Yet the platform takes 5% of every fine and charges the victim Rp5 million a month per case, and the proposal is written for “Rahmat Wibowo / InfraLoka”, whose CEO is Rahmat. The first “victim” it names is Rahmat himself.
3. Thousands of suspects, by design. The model treats every repost as a crime, unmasks anonymous accounts, files complaints automatically and, in its final phase, takes fines straight from accounts linked to people’s ID numbers. Its own risk section puts the chance of mass criminalisation at 60–80% and says it could be used to silence legitimate criticism and political opposition. It still passes itself.
4. “Pick a victim with a sympathetic profile.” The plan for the first case is a PR choice, not a legal one. Nine days later he sent the same model to the President, with his own case as the study, while writing that his case “must not become the pilot” (doc-20260817-001).
5. The numbers do not add up. 500 cases × 800 reposts × Rp50 million × 15% is Rp3 trillion, not the “Rp30 trillion” the proposal repeats in its summary, scoring and conclusion. The Rp1.5 trillion “success fee” is 5% of that inflated figure. The Rp500 billion a year from subscriptions at Rp5 million a month would need over 8,000 cases running all year, against the 500 a year it assumes. Even the case-study table is off: 659 × Rp66,666,667 is Rp43.93 billion, not Rp43.97 billion.
6. An “academic examiner” that works for the client. AEGIS is presented as an independent “guardian of intellectual standards”, but the client is Rahmat, the copyright is his, and the report admits its bias in its last section. He used the same AEGIS label for the “legal analyses” that listed dozens of accounts that reposted @KawalRahmatwi as targets and predicted prison sentences and billions in damages for them (ev-20260728-039, ev-20260728-038).

Legal references were checked against published summaries, not official texts.