Wijanto Tirtasana
Wijanto Tirtasana, a businessman with over four decades of experience in businesses including mining, property, finance, cold storage, mediation and, most recently, founder of fertiliser import-export business PT. Mitra Cipta Agro.
This website is to make available correct information to be used by journalists in the reporting of the case against Wijanto Tirtasana and Lily Tjakra: Case number S.pgl/2313/V11/RES.26./2024/At Ditreskrimsus.
OPINION
Re: Potential Novum for Judicial Review Under Article 263 of the Indonesian Code of Criminal Procedure (KUHAP)
Instructions
I have been asked to express an opinion as to whether certain categories of evidence, described below, are capable of constituting a novum within the meaning of Article 263 of the Indonesian Code of Criminal Procedure ("KUHAP"), thereby providing a potential basis for an application for Judicial Review (Peninjauan Kembali or "PK").
This Opinion is prepared solely upon the factual chronology provided in the instructions received. It does not constitute findings of fact. Any definitive legal conclusion would necessarily depend upon examination of the complete court record, the relevant documentary evidence, and the judgments delivered at each level of the Indonesian judicial process.
The Applicable Legal Principle
Article 263 KUHAP permits a convicted person to seek Judicial Review upon specified grounds, including the discovery of new evidence (novum).
Although each case depends upon its own facts, the essential legal question is generally whether the evidence:
(a) was not known, and could not reasonably have been produced, during the original proceedings;
(b) is genuinely new rather than merely cumulative or repetitive; and
(c) is of such significance that, had it been available at trial, it may reasonably have led to a judgment more favourable to the convicted person.
The assessment is therefore qualitative rather than merely procedural.
Analysis of the Proposed Evidence
1. Independent External Audit Reports (2018–2022)
The independently audited financial statements for the financial years 2018 through 2022 reportedly express an Unqualified Opinion, indicating that the financial statements fairly presented the company's financial position in accordance with applicable accounting standards.
In principle, such reports may possess considerable evidential value.
However, whether they constitute a novum depends upon an important factual question.
If those reports were already before the trial court, or were capable of being produced and examined during the original proceedings, they would ordinarily not satisfy the legal requirement of newly discovered evidence.
Conversely, if they were unavailable to the defence, withheld, or never judicially examined despite their existence, a stronger argument may arise that they fall within the scope of Article 263 KUHAP.
2. The Company's Audited Financial Statements for 2023
In my opinion, this appears to be the issue of greatest potential legal significance.
I am instructed that defence counsel formally requested production of the audited financial statements for the 2023 financial year but that those documents have not been disclosed.
If that account is correct, and if the documents subsequently obtained demonstrate that:
• the company suffered no financial loss;
• its assets, profitability, and receivables remained substantially intact; or
• its financial condition materially contradicts the prosecution's allegations,
then those documents may possess characteristics consistent with novum.
This conclusion would be strengthened if it can be demonstrated that the defence exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to obtain the documents before or during trial but was prevented from doing so by circumstances outside its control.
3. Evidence Given by the Auditor During Trial
It is understood that the auditor who testified before the District Court accepted that the work undertaken consisted only of verification of bank statements and did not constitute an independent financial audit.
That evidence cannot properly be described as novum, since it formed part of the evidentiary record before the trial court.
Nevertheless, it is capable of assuming considerable legal significance because it may undermine the reliability of the methodology upon which the alleged financial loss was calculated.
Whether that point ultimately affects the safety of the conviction is a matter for the reviewing court.
4. Independent Audit Findings Through 2022
The independent audit reports for the period ending in 2022 reportedly concluded that the company's financial statements fairly presented its financial position and disclosed no indication of corporate financial loss.
Those findings undoubtedly strengthen the defence narrative.
However, standing alone, they are unlikely to satisfy the legal definition of novum if they were available during the original proceedings.
Their greater significance may lie in corroborating genuinely new evidence subsequently obtained, particularly any audit evidence relating to the 2023 financial year.
Overall Assessment
On the instructions presently available, I consider that the strongest potential basis for establishing novum would consist of newly obtained evidence demonstrating the company's actual financial position during 2023.
In particular, evidence establishing that:
• the company remained financially solvent;
• the alleged financial losses did not in fact exist;
• the prosecution's financial calculations were materially inaccurate; and
• such evidence was unavailable during trial despite reasonable efforts by the defence,
would appear substantially more persuasive than reliance upon documents already existing before the proceedings commenced.
In addition, an independent forensic accounting opinion addressing the distinction between bank statement transactions and actual corporate loss could materially strengthen such an application.
Conclusion
Subject always to examination of the complete court record and the documentary evidence, there appears to be an arguable legal basis for contending that newly discovered financial evidence—particularly the audited financial statements for 2023 and any accompanying forensic accounting analysis—may satisfy the statutory requirements for novum under Article 263 KUHAP.
Whether those materials ultimately justify the granting of Judicial Review is a matter exclusively for the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia. However, on the factual assumptions upon which I have been instructed, the proposed evidence appears capable of supporting a serious and properly arguable application.
Counsel's Opinion
This Opinion is necessarily preliminary and is confined to the information presently available. It should be read together with the complete judgments of the District Court, the High Court on appeal, the Supreme Court on cassation, the trial transcripts, and all documentary evidence before any concluded opinion is reached regarding the prospects of a successful Judicial Review.
Klik di bawah
Wijanto Tirtasana’s Statement
26 April 2025
I have been sentenced to 5 years and 6 months without the court having proof of a proper externally audited financial account. There are several serious concerns regarding the evidence and process that led to this outcome:
1. Conflict of interest with the external auditor
The same external auditor who audited my accounts from 2018 to 2022 is now providing evidence against me in court. This raises serious concerns about the independence and objectivity of the evidence, as the auditor's dual role creates a potential conflict of interest.
2. Lack of independent and verified evidence
The main evidence presented by the auditor was a set of bank statements from 2018 to 2023. However, bank statements are not the same as audited financial statements. They do not capture the full scope of financial activities and lack the thorough verification and accountability processes that an official audit would require.
3. Incomplete audit period and data discrepancy
The auditor only audited financial records up to 2022, but in court, bank statements from 2023 were also used as evidence. It is unclear why the auditor did not audit the full period up to 2023. This discrepancy raises questions about the completeness and reliability of the evidence presented.
4. Potential grounds for legal appeal
Given the issues with the auditor's role, the reliance on unaudited bank statements, and the missing audited accounts for 2023, there may be strong grounds for appeal. These factors could suggest that the court relied on incomplete, biased, or insufficient evidence when making its decision.
5. Absence of proper proof
Critically, the court sentenced me without requiring a full, independently verified audit report. This lack of solid, external proof should have been a major concern in determining whether there was enough evidence to convict.
Background
PT. Mitra Cipta Agro (PT. MCA) Dispute Overview
1. Lack of Audited Financials
As of today, there are no externally audited financial statements for 2023. Despite this, we have been accused of mismanagement, which is completely unfounded. During the court hearing, the auditor admitted that the accusations against us were not proven and could not be applied in the case.
From 2018 to 2022, external audits were conducted without issue, and Margaret Christina Yudhi Handayani Rampolodji (wife of Rathmady Effendi Hutahaean) and her husband never raised any complaints. However, after discovering the substantial profits generated in 2023, they suddenly sought control of the business, fabricating accusations against us.
2. Hostile Takeover & Asset Misuse
We strongly believe their intention is to seize our appropriated assets and the business itself. They are likely using these assets as collateral for a bank loan, enabling them to access working capital without investing their own money.
All shareholders have signed off on these assets, and it is highly unlikely that the court will force us to return them to PT. MCA. This takeover is purely motivated by greed—they saw the success of the business we built and wanted to take everything for themselves.
In February 2024, an aggressive takeover of PT. MCA took place. Lily, one of the original founders, was removed from her role as Komisaris (Commissioner) and was instead classified as just a 40% shareholder—without signing any official documents.
3. The True History of PT. MCA
PT. MCA was established in 2016 and grew using our own business contacts, particularly supplier partnerships from Poland and a strong buyer base for SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) orders in 2017.
From September 2018 I, Wijanto Tirtasana, was appointed Managing Director after injecting IDR 7 billion (~USD 450,000) as a loan, with monthly interest of IDR 75 million. In return, 40% of the company’s shares were allocated to Margaret Rampolodji and a high-ranking Commissioner in Indonesia (Komisaris Utama).
Despite their later claims, neither Margaret nor her husband contributed to the business in any meaningful way. Lily and I personally invested USD 450,000 in 2018 and worked tirelessly to build PT. MCA into a successful enterprise, handling marketing, working capital funding, and securing key business relationships.
I have managed the company from Sept 2018 until Oct 2023, when I resigned due to the intimidation on the 20 November 2023.
4. A Monopoly Takeover
The reality is that PT. MCA is a monopoly business in the fertilizer industry, with both supplier networks and buyers already in place. Once the opposition realized its profitability, they orchestrated this takeover, replacing leadership and securing working capital at our expense.
This is not just an attack on us – it is a deliberate and unjustified seizure of a company that we built from the ground up.
Conclusion
We established PT. MCA with our own funding, efforts, and business contacts. The opposition had no involvement in its growth but now seeks to take full control by removing us and falsely claiming ownership of our assets.
Their accusations of mismanagement are completely baseless, and their actions show a clear pattern of deception and financial manipulation.
This situation is not only unjust but a blatant attempt to steal a thriving business. We will continue to fight for our rightful ownership of PT. MCA.
Key people
P.T Mitra Cipta Agro was founded by Wijanto Tirtasana in 2017 – who ran the company as Managing Director Sept 2018 until 20 November 2023.
Purwakarta Customs Chief Rahmady Effendi Hutahaean (also cited on media sites as Rahmady Effendy) gave a loan of IDR 7 billion to Wijanto Tirtasana to fund the business, on condition that Rahmady's wife, Margaret Christine Yudhi Handayani Rampolodji, be the main commissioner and a 40 percent shareholder.
Lily Tjakra is Wijanto Tirtasana’s wife, and holds 40 percent shares in Mitra for her husband, but had no active role in the business.
Ricky Tjakra is Lily Tjakra’s brother, Wijanto Tirtasana’s brother-in-law, who was Managing Director of the company from 2017-2018 but was removed from the post in 2018. Following Wijanto Tirtasana’s forced removal from the business in November 2023, Ricky has resumed the position of Managing Director of P.T Mitra Cipta Agro. His wife Dewi Farida holds 20 percent shares in the business – shares given in thanks for facilitating the loan from Rahmady Effendi Hutahaean. Ricky and Dewi are siding with Rahmady Effendi Hutahaean – together, they have a 60 percent sharehold.
Key dates
Margaret reported Wijanto to Polda Metro Jaya with Police Report number LP/B/6652/XI/2023/SPKT/Polda Metro Jaya, dated November 6, 2023. In the Police Report, Wijanto is said to have violated Article 263 and/or Article 266 and/or Article 374 of the Criminal Code and/or Article 3, Article 4, and Article 5 of Law Number 8 of 2010 concerning the Prevention and Eradication of the Crime of Money Laundering. This is an accusation he strongly denies, with audited accounts from 2017-2023 in his testament.
Head of Purwakarta Customs Rahmady Effendi is accused of having unreasonable assets of up to Rp60 billion, following a report made to the police by Wijanto Tirtasana and his lawyer. Rahmady was accused of not including all of his assets in the LHKPN. Rahmady was subsequently relieved of his position as Head of Purwakarta Customs since May 9, 2024, to facilitate further investigations. The examination found indications of a conflict of interest which also involved the family concerned. He was accused of intimidation, threat and extortion.
Lily Tjakra Tirtasana, the wife of Wijanto Tirtasana, is unlawfully detained at Polda Metro Jaya since 13 July 2024 – she remains in custody, with no charge. No evidence has been provided in support of her detention.
Wijanto Tirtasana’s Statement
I am the founder and former CEO of P.T Mitra Cipta Agro – a business I founded and worked tirelessly to grow.
The loan made by Rahmady Effendy to Wijanto Tirtasana funded my first purchase of high-value fertilisers from Europe – the business has gone on to become a leading fertiliser provider in Indonesia, and all investors have been paid their agreed dues until 2022, as agreed, with no complaints.
Although the turnover is high – it’s a high-value product – the profit margins are not large, as we needed to be competitive in our pricing to secure our position in the market.
I believe the false embezzlement accusations are a ploy to achieve full access in running and managing the company.
This case has all the markings of an aggressive takeover, motivated by greed. But the accusation of embezzlement is not supported by audited accounts we hold from 2017-2022.
Since leaving the business, however, 2023’s accounts have been withheld from us despite being shareholders – and I suspect foul play.
Ricky Tjakra now holds the position of Managing Director, and Margaret Christine Yudhi Handayani Rampolodji is pursuing the embezzlement case against me, Wijanto Tirtasana.
Lily Tjakra Tirtasana (pictured below) is now unlawfully being held in custody at Polda Metro Jaya, despite not being an active partner in the business, and without charge. A tactic I suspect by Margaret and Rahmady to put pressure on me leading up to our case hearing, and to discredit me with our business partners.
Incorrect Reporting
There have been a number of reports with incorrect facts.
It’s been reported that I, Wijanto Tirtasana, live in a large property – cited as testament to funds taken from the business. In fact, I live in a modest 3-bedroom villa in Bali. I do not own a large number of cars, as mentioned by the press. We live a modest lifestyle, in line with our income.
Lily Tjakra is a house wife, not involved in the day-to-day running of the business. Her imprisonment I suspect as a tactic from Margaret Christine Yudhi Handayani Rampolodji to put pressure on and discredit me.
