Rahmat Wibowo's complaint to the Jakarta police chief against PT Nomnie Technologies Indonesia, Dinda Auchterin Rhapsodya, the four advocates of JHP Law Office and a lawyer named “Agung”, after the police report against him was withdrawn

What this document is

A 26-page Surat Aduan Masyarakat (public complaint), numbered 009/ADUAN/RW/09/2026 and dated 8 September 2026, from Rahmat Wibowo as the “Pengadu” (complainant) to the Chief of the Jakarta Regional Police (Polda Metro Jaya). It was written on the same day as complaint 007/ADUAN/RW/09/2026 against AWS Indonesia (doc-20260908-001). It is directed at four “Teradu” (respondents):

• Teradu I: PT Nomnie Technologies Indonesia (Nomni AI / Liven), his former employer. He also asks the police to question its director; Randy Gunawan, its General Manager of Indonesia; and Salsabila Meidiana Putri, its HR Business Partner, as a witness.
• Teradu II: Dinda Auchterin Rhapsodya, its HR Operations Manager, who signed his termination letter.
• Teradu III: JHP Law Office and its advocates Esra Sitorus, Johan Sulipatty, Hendri Gunawan and Michael David Aritonang, who sent him the somasi of 1 July 2026 (doc-20260701-001).
• Teradu IV: Dimas Agung Hendarto (“Agung”), who describes himself as the lawyer who “at the time met Mr Fuad and Rahmat Wibowo at Polsek Cisauk”.

He blacked out his own ID number, place and date of birth, address, phone, email and “status” on page 1. He posted pages 1–6 and 10–13 on Threads on 31 October 2026. Pages 7–9 and 14–26 have not been found.

What it says

1. The employment. He was hired on an indefinite-term contract (PKWTT) as a Senior DevOps Engineer “since 2 March 2026”. On 21 April 2026, during his probation, the company ended his employment with seven days’ notice, in a letter signed by Dinda as “Penerima Kuasa Direktur” (the director’s attorney-in-fact). He asked for a copy of that power of attorney the same evening and says he never received it.
2. The labour dispute. The company did not answer his two bipartite invitations (for 4 and 8 May). The Tangerang Regency manpower office held a clarification on 3 June and mediation sessions on 10 and 24 June 2026, which ended with the mediator’s written recommendation (Anjuran). The dispute did not go on to the industrial relations court. At the bipartite meeting of 3 June, held on the manpower office’s direction, his four demands ended in deadlock: remaining wages, the qualification of his termination, compensation under the “Employee Referral Program”, and pre-contract wages.
3. Randy Gunawan and Salsabila Meidiana Putri. He says that at that meeting, after he told them he has a mental disability, the general manager questioned whether he was competent to negotiate and verbally threatened to report him to the police for defaming the company. He concedes this “was not recorded in writing” in the signed minutes. He also attributes several remarks to the HRBP, which he says are “not documented in writing” either.
4. The phone call of 3 June. He says Dinda called him that afternoon and insulted his mental condition (“gila kaya anak anjing”), which is the basis of his own police report against her. In reply, he told her about Articles 38 and 39 of the new Criminal Code (reduced or no punishment for people with mental disabilities) and then wrote to her on WhatsApp: “jangan sampe di kantor polisi mba malah dipermalukan” (“don’t end up being humiliated at the police station, miss”), with photos of Articles 38–39 and of the defamation and slander articles 433–434, and asked “paham tidak mba” (“do you understand, miss?”).
5. The somasi. The four advocates are accused of issuing a somasi “without a single piece of evidence attached”, and of using a power of attorney from the company to claim damage to “the company and its employees”.
6. “Agung” and the agreement. On 23 July 2026, Agung wrote to him on WhatsApp: “Ditunggu itikad baiknya utk dihapus kembali sesuai perjanjian awal, atau akan kembali kami proses di Kepolisian” (“We await your good faith in deleting it again, in accordance with the original agreement, or we will take it back to the police”), about his LinkedIn profile. He calls this a threat to reopen “a police report that had been declared closed/withdrawn”, and says that even they admitted deleting his LinkedIn was “not in that agreement” (“Kan tdk ada di agreement tsb”).
7. Seven counts (the table on pages 12–13):
   1. Minor insult (Article 436 with Article 441), for “gila” and “rsj” (mental hospital) in WhatsApp messages of 3 June and 14 July, against Dinda.
   2. Obstructing the rights of a person with a disability (Articles 143 and 145 of Law 8/2016, up to two years), for filing her police report the same day as the bipartite clarification, against Dinda and the company.
   3. Slander (Article 434, up to three years), for the somasi, against the JHP advocates and the company.
   4. Aggravation for using information technology (Article 441(1)), on top of count 3.
   5. Defamation under the ITE Law (Article 27A with Article 45(4) of Law 1/2024, up to two years), against Dinda, the JHP advocates and the company.
   6. False statements in a letter (Article 391, up to six years), for describing herself as the director’s attorney-in-fact in his termination letter, against Dinda.
   7. Corporate criminal liability (Articles 45–49 and 121) for counts 1–6.
8. His own police report. Exhibit B-001 is the receipt for his report against Dinda, LP/B/2209/VII/2026/SPKT/POLRES TANGERANG SELATAN/POLDA METRO JAYA of 14 July 2026, for insult over “gila kaya aja anjing”.

Observations

1. A report against him was withdrawn, so he filed his own. By his own account, Dinda’s police report against him was “declared closed/withdrawn” under an agreement made with her side, whose lawyer met him at Polsek Cisauk. That is the police station where, according to lawyer Machrio Achmad Nurhatta, Rahmat was filmed crying, and Machrio wrote that Rahmat deleted his LinkedIn out of fear of going to prison (ev-20261019-006, doc-20260705-001). His own report against Dinda is dated 14 July 2026, the day Polsek Cisauk had invited him to give a statement. By 23 July, her side was asking him to delete his content “again, in accordance with the original agreement”. He now asks the police to treat that reminder as a threat and to prosecute the woman whose report was withdrawn.
2. “Don’t end up being humiliated at the police station.” In the middle of a dispute with the HR manager who processed his termination, he sent her the articles that reduce or remove punishment for people with mental disabilities, together with the defamation and slander articles, warned her that she might be the one humiliated at the police station, and asked “do you understand, miss?”. He presents this as advising her to send a somasi first. He has since admitted, in a private message, to threatening to kill her (ev-20261014-002).
3. Retaliating against the opposite gender, again. Dinda is named in five of the seven counts, including one carrying up to six years in prison for describing her role in his termination letter. On page 12 he states that he “does not definitively accuse” the power of attorney of being forged, but he still lists the count.
4. Paid for referrals that were all rejected. One of his four demands was compensation under the company’s Employee Referral Program. According to the company’s lawyers, none of the candidates he recommended met its criteria, and all of them were rejected (doc-20260701-001).
5. Lawyers accused of slander for a warning letter. The somasi asked him to stop posting and to delete his content. He answers it by accusing its four signatories of slander, after already filing an ethics complaint against them with PERADI (ev-20260728-046). A fifth lawyer is named for a WhatsApp message reminding him of the agreement.
6. Threats that are not on record. The threat he attributes to Randy Gunawan is, in his own words, not in the minutes that both sides signed, and the remarks he attributes to Salsabila Meidiana Putri are “not documented in writing”. He asks the police to call her to confirm his account.
7. The same day as the AWS complaint. Complaints 007 and 009 are both dated 8 September 2026. Each turns a dismissal during probation and the mediation that followed into criminal counts against the company and the HR staff who handled it (doc-20260908-001).
8. Not shown to have been filed. The pages found carry no police receipt or report number for this complaint.

Pages still needed

Pages 7–9, which continue the chronology (sections IV.4 and IV.5) and begin the analysis of each count, and pages 14–26, which continue the exhibit gallery from Exhibit B-003.