Indonesian prosecutors have sought prison terms ranging from 9-12 years against former executives of agritech startup TaniHub Group, venture capital firm MDI Ventures, and BRI Ventures (BVI) in a corruption case linked to investments in the startup.
The demands were made during hearings at the Jakarta Corruption Court on Thursday, bringing the closely watched case closer to a verdict.
Prosecutors have sought 12 years in prison and a 1-billion-rupiah ($56,488) fine each for former MDI Ventures chief executive officer Donald Wihardja and former MDI Ventures vice president of investment Aldi Adrian Hartanto.
In a statement shared with DealStreetAsia, a spokesperson for law firm Soesilo Aribowo & Rekan (KHSA), which represents both Wihardja and Hartanto, said the public prosecutor had concluded that the two defendants were guilty under the primary indictment.
“In its sentencing demand, the public prosecutor stated that Donald Wihardja and Aldi Adrian Hartanto were proven guilty under the primary indictment and sought prison terms of 12 years as well as fines of 1 billion rupiah each,” the spokesperson said.
The prosecutor also sought that former BRI Ventures chief executive officer Nicko Widjaja be sentenced to 11 years in prison, while former BRI Ventures vice president of investment William Gozali faces a nine-year prison sentence. Both were also ordered to pay a 1 billion rupiah each in fine.
In a separate court hearing, prosecutors were said to have sought a 12-year prison sentence for former TaniHub president director Ivan Arie Sustiawan, according to sources. DealStreetAsia could not independently verify the prosecution’s sentencing demand against former TaniHub director Edison Tobing, and details were not immediately available.
The case stems from MDI Ventures and BVI’s approval of a joint $25-million investment in TaniHub and its affiliated entities in 2019. Prosecutors alleged that the investment was approved without a proper legal basis and that portions of the funds were later diverted for personal use.
They also alleged that irregularities in the investment process and the subsequent use of funds caused state losses. Court proceedings have also examined allegations that some funds were used outside approved purposes and that information presented during the investment process did not accurately reflect the company’s financial condition.
Nicko Widjaja’s legal team, however, argued that the case risks criminalising business decisions and venture capital investment activities.
Following the hearing, Widjaja’s legal team from Hotma Sitompoel Law Firm said the investment in TaniHub had gone through multiple layers of review, including initial screening, pre-due diligence, deep due diligence, and internal approval processes in accordance with the firm’s operating guidelines.
“The facts revealed during the trial show that there was no mens rea or criminal intent, no bribery, no conflict of interest, and no flow of funds that benefitted the defendant,” the defence team said in a statement, published on social media on Thursday.
The lawyers further argued that prosecutors had failed to establish allegations of fictitious receivables, abuse of authority, unlawful conduct, or personal enrichment.
“This demand is clearly inconsistent with the facts presented during the trial, disproportionate, and unreasonable both legally and logically, especially when the prosecutors themselves failed to prove the elements of unlawful conduct, self-enrichment, or abuse of authority,” the firm said.
The defence described the proceedings as a significant test case for Indonesia’s venture capital industry.
“This case is important because it is the first case in which venture capital business practices have been brought into the realm of corruption prosecution,” the lawyers said. “Criminal law should not be used to criminalise business risk, business failure, or business judgments made professionally and in good faith.”
Separately, Widjaja published a handwritten statement on social media after the hearing, describing the prosecution’s demand as devastating for himself and his family.
“Today I must face a very difficult reality: that business decisions carried out through institutional mechanisms, with layers of review, process, and approval, are still being prosecuted as criminal acts,” he wrote.
Widjaja added that he hoped the case would be assessed based on what he described as the fundamental facts.
“There was no abuse of authority, no conflict of interest, no personal gain, no bad faith, and everything was carried out in good faith,” he wrote.
The next hearing is scheduled for June 3, when the defendants will submit their pleadings. The panel of judges is expected to deliver its verdict on June 10.
