Rahmat Wibowo's “legal notice and formal complaint” to PERADI accusing advocate Machrio Achmad Nurhatta of breaching the advocates' code of ethics, whose own “AEGIS” findings rate most of the allegations weak or undeterminable

What this document is

A complaint titled Legal Notice dan Pengaduan Resmi (legal notice and formal complaint), headed “Dugaan Pelanggaran Kode Etik Advokat oleh R. Machrio Achmad Nurhatta” (alleged breach of the advocates’ code of ethics by R. Machrio Achmad Nurhatta), on Rahmat Wibowo’s “Infraloka Legal Research” letterhead. It is addressed to the National Board of the Indonesian Advocates Association (DPN PERADI) and PERADI’s DKI Jakarta Honour Council.

Three pages have been found: the cover, and two consecutive pages of section VI, “Dua Puluh Enam Temuan AEGIS” (twenty-six AEGIS findings), covering findings T-01 to T-14. It is dated 16 August 2026. The pages carry no page numbers or document number, so the total length is not known; the page numbers here are ours. On the cover his own photo sits over his address; we have covered what remained visible of his address and phone number.

What it says

• Subject: a legal notice, a complaint of breach of the advocates’ code of ethics, and requests to verify Machrio’s membership, examine him, take “proportional” action, and forward the decision to the competent authorities.
• Section VI summarises an audit file, report/peradi-aegis-findings.md, with counter-arguments and the strength of the evidence for each issue (“so that the Council is not steered to a one-sided conclusion”). The findings found are:
  • Medium:
    • T-01, the propriety of language in professional communication;
    • T-02, an alleged threat to spit, which may be “emotional hyperbole”;
    • T-03, family members dragged into insults, though “the start of the conversation is not available and who first involved family is not known”.
  • Weak:
    • T-04, a dismissive tone (“liat lu ngelawak”, “watch you clown around”), possibly a joke, with the sender’s identity not visible;
    • T-06, priority for amicable settlement;
    • T-07, the phrase “Silahkan bro kalo ke ITE nya” (“go ahead, bro, if you want to go the ITE route”), which “must not automatically be called a threat” and may be a response to a route Rahmat himself proposed;
    • T-10, precision of procedural terms;
    • T-11, direct communication with a represented party, relevant only if Rahmat had appointed an advocate, “evidence of which does not yet exist”;
    • T-13, consistency of Machrio’s status as counsel.
  • Undeterminable:
    • T-05, proportionality of “lapor balik” (“report back”) and “LP in aja” (“just file a police report”), noting that explaining criminal options “can be a legitimate legal defence”;
    • T-08, invoking criminal reports as pressure;
    • T-09, the accuracy of Machrio’s claims about a case at national police headquarters, noting that Rahmat not holding the documents “does not prove the report never existed”;
    • T-12, Machrio asking Rahmat not to contact his client directly, which “may be legitimate”.

Observations

1. His own analysis does not support the complaint. Of the fourteen findings found, none is rated strong. Three are “medium”, six are “weak” and four “cannot yet be determined”. The counter-arguments are his own: the messages may not be attributable to Machrio, may be outside his professional capacity, may respond to provocation not shown, or may be jokes. He sends the complaint anyway.
2. The missing context. Finding T-03 concedes that the start of the conversation is missing and that it is not known who first brought family members into the insults. T-07 concedes that “go ahead if you want to go the ITE route” may be a response to a route Rahmat himself proposed.
3. Complaining about others using criminal reports as pressure. T-05 and T-08 frame Machrio’s talk of police reports as possible pressure. In the weeks that followed, Rahmat threatened police reports, wanted-person status and extradition in legal notice after legal notice, for example against a PhD student in Beijing (doc-20260920-001) and against Ghozy Ul Haq (doc-20260828-004).
4. Contacting the other side’s client. T-12 records that Machrio asked Rahmat to communicate through counsel rather than contact his client directly. Rahmat treats that request as a possible ethics issue.
5. Part of a pattern. He has complained to PERADI about other advocates too: an unnamed attorney in May 2026 (ev-20260511-005) and four JHP Law Firm advocates (ev-20260728-046). Machrio is the advocate who reported Rahmat to the police; Rahmat has since answered with his own police report against Machrio (doc-20260927-001) and a complaint against the investigators handling Machrio’s report (doc-20261014-001).

Legal references were not checked against official texts.

Pages still needed

All other pages, including sections I–V, findings T-14 onwards, and the signature page.