Rahmat Wibowo's legal notice to Adith Widya Pradipta in Tokyo, copied to his employer eLife, demanding Rp533 million and threatening Interpol over a quote post and two reposts

What this document is

A 14-page somasi (legal notice), numbered 007/SOMASI/RW/VIII/2026 and dated Friday, 28 August 2026, from Rahmat Wibowo in Bekasi to Adith Widya Pradipta, holder of the X account @adith_wp, an Indonesian citizen living in Tokyo. It is copied to his employer, eLife Inc. (株式会社イーライフ), for the attention of its directors, HR and legal divisions, and to the alumni association of Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember. Pages 1–9 and 11–13 have been found; pages 10 and 14 have not.

What it says

• The posts.
  • A quote post of @KawalRahmatwi’s “Besok siang, aku akan expose bagaimana Rahmat Wibowo melakukan pemerasan terhadap puluhan orang melalui somasi baselessnya”, with his comments “(((Somasi baseless))) Bener2 istilah yang tepat.” and “Tapi bisa jadi. Gw sih jelas gak takut. Tapi dia kan nebar jala. Jadi mungkin ada aja ‘korbannya.’ Makanya dia udah bukan tergolong orang gila doang, tapi orang jahat! Harus dikawal.”
  • Reposts of the same two @KawalRahmatwi posts of 14 and 17 May 2026 that his notice to Yassirullah Muhammad is about (doc-20260828-001).
• Legal basis. Articles 433, 434 and 441 of the new Criminal Code; Article 27A jo. 45(4) of the ITE Law; Articles 1365–1373 of the Civil Code; and, “because you live and work in Japan”, Articles 230, 231 and 232 of the Japanese Penal Code and Articles 709, 710, 715 and 723 of the Japanese Civil Code, each quoted in Japanese with a romanised reading and an Indonesian translation.
• Demands, within three days, by Monday 31 August 2026 at 17:00 WIB:
  • delete the quote, comments and reposts;
  • pin a public apology for 30 days;
  • publish a clarification that he has no evidence;
  • stop any further statements;
  • pay Rp533,333,334, “two times the maximum fine for slander” under Articles 434 and 441.
• If not met:
  • two police reports to Bareskrim’s cyber crime directorate;
  • a complaint and civil suit in Japan, including against eLife Inc.;
  • a civil suit in Indonesia with eLife Inc. as co-defendant;
  • mutual legal assistance with Japan and, “if necessary”, an Interpol red notice;
  • sending the notice and evidence to eLife Inc. and the alumni association;
  • publishing the notice.

Observations

1. The same day, the same template. He documented these posts on 28 August between 15:16 and 16:12, two hours after documenting the posts in his notice to Yassirullah Muhammad, and both notices carry the same date. The descriptions of the two @KawalRahmatwi reposts, the tables of elements and the treatment of the disability law are nearly word for word the same in both (doc-20260828-001).
2. “Baseless somasi” answered with a somasi. The recipient called his somasi baseless and said Rahmat “nebar jala” (casts a net) for victims. The reply is a somasi, sent the same day as another, demanding Rp533,333,334 — the same amount he demanded from Adityo Pratomo the next day and from Kukuh Setiawan five weeks later (doc-20260829-001, doc-20261001-001).
3. The employer in two countries. He names eLife Inc. as a possible co-defendant under Article 1367(3) of the Indonesian Civil Code and Article 715 of the Japanese Civil Code, and plans to send it the notice and evidence. Both articles, as he quotes them, concern harm caused “in the course of” the employer’s business; his reasoning is only that the recipient lists his job in public. In a later notice he wrote that he would not use the recipient’s employer as leverage (doc-20261001-001).
4. Extradition he concedes is limited. The notice states that Indonesia and Japan have no extradition treaty and that, “secara realistis”, the extradition route for a defamation case alone is limited; it still lists a red notice through Interpol. In June he had already told Adith in public that he would send a somasi and seek extradition (ev-20260616-013).
5. He concedes the disability law does not apply. As in his notice to Yassirullah Muhammad, he writes that the facts do not meet the elements of Article 145 jo. 143 of Law 8/2016 and that it is not a basis for a criminal report.
6. What his own screenshot shows. In evidence B-4 (page 13), the browser tabs open while he documented the reposts include “Gegy Ham…” — Gegy Hamdani is another account listed on the same page of reposters — and “ITB NIM Fin…”.
7. Not shown to have been sent or answered. The collected pages show no proof of delivery and no reply. The pages were posted on X by @matcha_weeb, an account this site’s home page lists as one of Rahmat’s aliases; the post’s ID dates it to 28 August 2026 at about 17:27 WIB, the day the notice is dated and three days before its own deadline.
8. Numbering. 003, 004, 006 and 007 are all dated 28 August (doc-20260828-003, doc-20260828-004), and 027 is dated 29 August (doc-20260829-001). The numbers are not a running count for the year, though: his complaint of 14 August cites a somasi numbered 035/SOMASI/RW/IV/2026, dated 19 April 2026 (doc-20260814-001).

Legal references, including the Japanese provisions, were not checked against official texts.