Rahmat Wibowo published a legal case report accusing PT CreateIT Solution Indonesia, Andri Senjaya, and zvoove Group GmbH of unlawfully terminating his contract and publicly branding him an 'enemy', asserting strong grounds for defamation and slander claims under Indonesian law.

Abranded account called him an enemy. Here is what the law says happens next. Zvoove Group Germany and Create IT Solution Indonesia Case Report Rahmat Wibowo - June1,2026 A branded account called him an enemy. Here is what the law says happens next. Rahmat Wibowo v. PT CreatelT Solution Indonesia, Andri Senjaya & zvoove Group GmbH (escalation review) Executive Verdict The evidentiary record currently supports a strong Indonesian civil claim against the local defendants, anda credible criminal complaint theory under the 2023 Criminal Code. The claim against zvoove Group GmbH itself is not yet conclusively proven and needs a separate, parallel track Most likely outcome: an Indonesian judgment or settlement against PT CreatelT Solution Indonesia and Andri Senjaya takedown, apology, and medium-to-significant damages while zvoove Group GmbH faces escalating preservation and compliance pressure rather than an immediate direct damages judgment. Case Summary Rahmat Wibowo worked under freelance contract PJF-202603001. The relationship ended through a sudden access cutoff rather than the documented 30-day written notice the contract contemplates. In the same window, azvoove-branded account publicly named Rahmatan "enemy" and claimed his case was harming the reputation of Indonesian job candidates as a group a statement made under branding that lends it apparent institutional authority. 22 April2026 Suddenaccess cutoff Working relationship under PJF- 202603001 terminated without the documented 30-day written notice process. Same window Public statement by @agnghrcl Zvoove-branded account names Rahmat an "enemy" and attributes collective reputational harm to him byname not private criticism, a public accusation Escalation phase Two cores split: local merits + cross- border attribution The dispute separates into a local Indonesian unlawful-act claim, and an open question of whether zvoove Group GmbH bears exposure through control, authorization, ratification, ornegligent failure to act. Verified Primary Law Sourced directly from KUH Perdata and UU Nomor1 Tahun 2023 (KUHP Baru) — no UUITE reliance, as that text was unavailable in the source set KUH Perdata Art. 1365 “Tiap perbuatan yang melanggar hukum danmembawa kerugian kepada orang lain, mewajibkan orang yang menimbulkan kerugian itu karena kesalahannya untuk menggantikan kerugian tersebut.” RelevanceCore unlawful-act cause of action for reputational and economic damage KUH Perdata Art. 1372 “Tuntutan perdata tentang hal penghinaan diiajukan untuk memperoleh penggantian kerugian serta pemulihan kehormatan dan nama baik." RelevanceGrounds the apology, retraction, and reputational restoration requests. KUH Perdata Art. 1380 “Tuntutan dalam perkarapenghinaan gugur dengan lewatnya waktu satu tahun, terhitung mulai dari hariperbuatan termaksud dilakukan oleh tergugat dan diketahui oleh penggugat.” RelevanceOne-year limitation period — creates urgency for flling and notice strategy. UUNo. 1/2023 Art. 433 Anoralattack ona person's honor or good name, made so it becomes publicly known, is punishable as defamation. RelevanceFits the public "enemy" accusation and the wider reputational narrative directly. UUNo. 1/2023 Art. 434 If the accuser cannot prove an accusation that contradicts what they knew, the offense escalates to slander or false accusation. RelevanceCritical if defendants cannot substantiate the claim that Rahmat harmed Indonesian candidates generally. UUNo. 1/2023 Art. 436 Non-written insult outside classic defamation remains punishable as minor insult. RelevanceFallback countif a court treats the words as insult rather than factual imputation UUNo. 1/2023 Art. 441 Penalties under Articles 433-439 may be increased by one-third where the conduct used information technology. RelevanceStrengthens criminal exposure, since the conduct happened entirely online. Evidentiary Snapshot Sixissues are presently supported by the file set. The single largest unresolved gap is corporate attribution to zvoove Group GmbH — branding alone does not establish direct liability, Main Evidence Gap — Corporate Attribution Abranded accountis not automatically enough to impose direct liability on the German parent. The record still needs at least one of the following} Account ownership records Admin-access logs Employment oragency records tying the operator to zvoove Group GmbH Internal instructions, approvals, or ratification after notice Proof zvoove refused to disable or correct the account after formal complaint This gap does not defeat the local Indonesia case. It mainly limits how aggressively zvoove Group GmbH can be targeted at the outset. Probability Analysis Evaluated against the litigation environmentas it presently stands — not a guaranteed final outcome. Cross-Border Strategy How to pursue Indonesia and Germany without weakening either case Famert mete dement ‘reversion before damages Recommended Claims & Relief Evidence Development Checklist Targets that materially improve the claim against zvoove Group GmbH specifically. Platform URL, post ID, and precise timestamp foreach harmful post Public profile screenshot showing account description, links, and email identity. Any message showing use of a zvoove-controlled email address or enterprise system. Copies of complaints sent to zvoove and any response, or documented silence. Contract, invoice, and payment trail supporting the local dispute chronology. Medical documentation linking the incident period to relapse or psychiatric harm. Witness statements from the recruitment community who saw the branded statements. Image Attachments Final Assessment Onthe current record, the case is litigation-worthy now against the Indonesia-based actor set already supported by primary Indonesian sources anda direct screenshot tying the insult to a branded public communication. The path against zvoove Group GmbHis not blocked, but should be pursued intelligently: convert the German company froma suspicious brand presence into a documented evidence custodian and, if facts support it, a ratifying or controlling corporate actor. #CorporateAccountability #Professionalintegrity #Defamation #ReputationalHarm #indonesianLaw #CrossBorderDisputes #LegalStrategy #DigitalEvidence #Compliance #WorkplaceEthics