Rahmat Wibowo provocatively defend himself againts Dinda Rhapsodya for complaining about his inappropriate behavior and harassing Liven employees and business

Iwas told by Liven's Country Director of Indonesia that | was "threatening their employee.” The allegation: that | regularly visited near their office, met someone who works there, and said the words “Awas aja ini nanti perusahaannya bangkrut.” That is the full charge. So let me respond to it carefully, using the actual law. WHAT IS CRIMINAL THREATENING UNDER KUHP NO. 1 TAHUN 2023? Under the new KUHP (in force 2026), criminal threatening (pengancaman) is defined under Pasal 449 and the surrounding provisions on pemerasan (extortion). The elements require: 1. A threat of VIOLENCE -- kekerasan atau ancaman kekerasan -- directed at a person 2. OR a threat of a criminal act endangering public safety 3. OR a threat of serious physical harm, rape, or arson 4, AND/OR intent to unlawfully force someone to hand over goods, make a debt, or cancel a receivable (Pasal 483) Critically, the old Pasal 335 KUHP -- which used the notoriously vague "perbuatan tidak menyenangkan" (unpleasant acts) provision - ~ has been completely REMOVED in KUHP No. 1 Tahun 2023. It no longer exists. The new Pasal 448 requires concrete kekerasan atau ancaman kekerasan. Vague discomfort is not a criminal threat. NOW LET US EXAMINE THE ALLEGED "THREAT." The statement: "Awas aja ini nanti perusahaannya bangkrut." Let me run this through the legal elements one by one. Was there a threat of violence against a person? No. Was there a threat of physical harm, rape, or arson? No. Was there a demand for goods, money, or cancellation of a debt? No. Was there coercion through threat of defamation to extract material benefit? No. Was the subject of the statement a natural person (orang)? No. The subject is "perusahaannya’,the company. The statement is a prediction. An opinion. A business forecast, even. What does it tell you about a Country Director who: ‘Accuses someone of "threatening an employee" when the statement was about the company, not the person? There are two possibilities | can see. ONE -- They know the law and are deliberately misrepresenting it to intimidate. That is a misuse of legal process and of the authority of their position. TWO -- They do not know the law. A Country Director who cannot identify the basic elements of criminal threatening under the applicable KUHP, is demonstrating a fundamental legal incapability that raises serious questions about their fitness to lead operations in this jurisdiction. None of these options reflect well on the company or the leadership running it. Acompany that cannot tell the difference between a business prediction and a criminal threat is not a company that understands the environment it operates in. #EmploymentLaw #KUHP #UUNotTahun2023 #WorkerRights #IndonesiaLaw #LegalLiteracy #WorkplaceJustice #HukumPidana #HukumKetenagakerjaan #CorporateAccountability #CountryDirector #Liven #LeadershipFail #infraloka #PencemaranNamaBai #Pengancaman #Startupindonesia #CrossBorderLaw #SpeakingTruth #KnowYourRights