Rahmat Wibowo's “confidential” notice to the CEO of Petra Novandi Barus's employer about his police report against Petra, which says it is “not a somasi” and “does not report corruption” while setting out corporate criminal liability and corruption articles

What this document is

A notice (Surat Pemberitahuan) numbered 076/PEMBERITAHUAN/RW/X/2026, dated Friday, 30 October 2026, and marked “Rahasia, hanya untuk Direksi, Divisi Hukum, Kepatuhan, dan SDM” (confidential, only for the board, legal, compliance and HR). It is from Rahmat Wibowo of Bekasi, acting for himself “as the injured party (Pelapor), without counsel”, and addressed to the president director of SawitPRO, for the attention of the board, the legal, compliance and human resources divisions. A copy goes to the investigators of Unit I of the Criminal Investigation Unit of the Tangerang Selatan Police, citing police report LP/B/2231/VII/2026 and inquiry order SP.Lidik/2535/VII/RES.1.14./2026.

Its subtitle: “Legal notice of a police report and a Gelar Fakta, including a review of corporate criminal liability, corruption offences, and the rights of persons with disabilities”. Rahmat posted page 1 of 30 on Threads himself, on the same day the letter is dated.

What it says

1. The subject. Notice of the police report and of a “Gelar Fakta” (presentation of facts) about acts “allegedly committed by Sdr. Petra Novandi (according to information I have obtained, Acting SVP of Technology and Commercial SawitPRO)”, with a review of corporate criminal liability (Articles 45 to 50 of the Criminal Code), corruption offences (Articles 603 and 604) “with a conditional scenario from the public prosecutor’s point of view”, the rights of persons with disabilities (Law 8/2016), evidence, an analysis of the elements and mens rea, and requests for confirmation, preservation of evidence and an internal review.
2. “Not a somasi.” “This letter is not a somasi to SawitPRO and contains no claim for damages against SawitPRO.” His rights against Petra personally, “including Somasi No. 047/SOMASI/RW/IX/2026 of 1 September 2026”, are unchanged.
3. “I am not reporting corruption.” “I do not state that SawitPRO has committed a crime, and I am not reporting corruption.” Section X.B is “a conditional scenario … not an accusation”. Everything is an allegation subject to the presumption of innocence, and the Gelar Fakta “is my own analysis and not a pro justitia product”.
4. Why the company. He writes to the president director because Petra, “according to information I have obtained”, works there. “Corporate criminal liability under Article 48(d) and (e) of the Criminal Code is assessed from the corporation’s attitude after it knows. The company should therefore hear it directly from me, not from others.” SawitPRO, he says, has already received copies of Somasi No. 047 and public complaint No. 048/ADUAN-POLDAMETRO-KPK/RW/IX/2026.
5. His medical documents. The attachments include “my health documents (M-1 to M-3)”, which he asks the company to treat as confidential.
6. A receipt. He asks for the enclosed acknowledgement of receipt to be filled in and returned.
7. The addressee’s details. Under the addressee: “the legal name and postal address follow the company’s official data; I have not verified them against the AHU [company registry] data”.

Observations

1. Writing to a target’s employer, again. This is at least the third time, by his own account, that Rahmat has written to Petra’s employer: the company had already received copies of his somasi and his complaint. Writing to a target’s employer is a pattern: he messaged the CEO and head of people of Steven Nataniel Kodyat’s employer, as his own exhibit records (doc-20261024-001) and copied his August notices to the recipients’ employers and universities (doc-20260828-001).

2. “Not a somasi”, with corporate crime and corruption in the subject. The letter says it accuses no one and reports no corruption, then sets out corporate criminal liability and corruption articles with a “conditional scenario from the public prosecutor’s point of view”, and explains that the company’s liability depends on what it does once it “knows”. In effect, it puts the company on notice.

3. An inquiry, not a case. The police report and the inquiry order (SP.Lidik) show that a report was filed and a preliminary inquiry opened. They do not make anyone a suspect, as Meta AI told him when he called Petra a “soon-to-be corruption convict” (ev-20261017-002). His “Gelar Fakta”, by his own words, is his own analysis and “not a pro justitia product”.

4. His own medical records, sent to someone else’s employer. He attaches his health documents to a letter to Petra’s employer, then asks the company to keep them confidential.

5. Unverified company details. He writes to the company without its legal name and says he has not checked the registry. Six days earlier, he argued that Steven Nataniel Kodyat’s reply was AI-written partly because it got the legal name of Steven’s employer wrong (doc-20261024-001).

6. “According to information I have obtained.” The letter tracks where Petra works and what his title is, as Rahmat’s earlier posts named the companies where he said Petra and Ibrahim Arief worked (ev-20261019-004).

7. “Confidential”, posted on Threads. The letter is marked confidential, “only for the board, legal, compliance and HR”, and asks the company to keep his medical documents private. He posted it on Threads himself the same day.

Pages still needed

Pages 2 to 30: the purpose of the letter, the Gelar Fakta, the analysis of corporate liability and corruption articles, the disability section, the evidence list, the requests, the signature and the receipt.