Defense challenges the indictment's clarity
At Wednesday's hearing, prosecutors asked judges to dismiss all preliminary objections filed by Febrie and his lawyers and allow the case to proceed to the evidentiary stage. They maintained that the indictment meets the requirements for precision, clarity and completeness.
The defense had challenged both the extortion and money laundering charges at the October 14 hearing, arguing that neither adequately explained the alleged conduct. Febrie's lawyers include Patra M. Zen and Febri Diansyah. The indictment spans 106 pages and covers extortion in office and money laundering.
Febrie previously led investigations at the Attorney General's Office before serving as deputy attorney general for special crimes, known as Jampidsus, from December 2021 until his resignation in July 2026. The Jakarta Post described the office's takeover of the investigation from the National Police, about three months before the trial began, as controversial.
Dispute over the alleged extortion and shared roles
The extortion charge, read at the first hearing on October 7, alleges that Febrie demanded Rp 55 billion, or 5 million Singapore dollars, from property businessman Tan Kian in exchange for keeping him from being named a suspect in the PT Asabri and PT Asuransi Jiwasraya corruption cases. The allegation has not been established by a verdict.
Febrie's lawyers argued that the indictment failed to specify his active role or explain a shared intent with Ferry Yanto Hongkiriwang, the alleged intermediary. Prosecutors countered that it describes Febrie's alleged misuse of his authority as investigations director, his involvement through Hongkiriwang, his receipt of money and his instruction to Nurman Herin to accept it. In their view, the account identifies the participants, their actions and the circumstances of the alleged offense.
The defense also questioned Hongkiriwang's legal status and why he was not being prosecuted in the same indictment. He remains a witness under Indonesia's witness protection program, while Don Ritto and Nurman face similar charges, according to The Jakarta Post.
Prosecutors said questions about other participants' accountability do not, by themselves, invalidate the case against Febrie. They argued that evidence must establish who arranged the meeting between Hongkiriwang and Tan Kian, whether any agreement preceded it, when Febrie learned of it, and how the participants coordinated or directed one another.
The lawyers also challenged the use of Article 20, letter c, of the Criminal Code, saying the indictment did not sufficiently explain shared intent and physical cooperation among Febrie, Don Ritto, Nurman and Hongkiriwang. Prosecutors responded that joint participation, or medeplegen, can involve different people performing different tasks within a connected course of conduct. They said a common intent need not rest on a written agreement or formal advance discussion; witness testimony and other evidence would be used to test it.
Money laundering allegations and seized assets
The money laundering charge alleges that Febrie acted with Nurman, Don Ritto and Hongkiriwang to launder Rp 346,743,821,282 and US$440,990 between 2020 and 2026. These remain allegations presented at trial, not findings of guilt.
The wider indictment also accuses Febrie of receiving Rp 60 billion and a Bali hotel in connection with a textile corruption case, Rp 12 billion in the BTS 4G BAKTI Kominfo case, and Rp 14 billion in shares in the Krakatau Steel case. Stateline Media reported those allegations from the October 7 indictment hearing.
The defense disputed whether the money laundering indictment adequately connected the seized gold and foreign currency to an underlying crime or explained the relevant transactions. During the investigation, authorities seized 74 kilograms of gold from three safes, as well as cash and foreign currency, in connection with the case.
Prosecutors said the indictment identifies extortion and gratification as the underlying offenses and records the amounts, values and locations of the seized gold and foreign currency. Establishing the assets' origins through transaction tracing, they argued, is a task for the evidentiary stage.
The lawyers also highlighted different dates in the investigation records and the indictment: the former referred to 2018 through 2026, while the latter alleged offenses from 2020 through 2026. They questioned seizures of assets they considered outside the charged period. Prosecutors said the indictment's dates reflect the investigative findings and are not automatically governed by the period listed in administrative records. They defended the more specific period of 2020 through July 2026 on the grounds that the alleged laundering was a continuing act, or voortgezette handeling. Whether particular assets fall within that period would be tested at trial.
Differences in asset values, amounts allegedly received, and errors in figures or calculations were another point of dispute. Prosecutors maintained that a numerical error does not automatically nullify an indictment when the intended meaning remains identifiable. They said the contested values, asset details and ownership of companies or foundations allegedly connected to Febrie belong in the examination of evidence.
Don Ritto disputes the alleged money trail
Don Ritto, also known as Idon, challenged the prosecution's attempt to connect legal fees, restaurant revenue, and holdings of gold and foreign currency to money laundering. He argued that the indictment treated legal payments from dozens of corporations as money intended for Febrie without tracing how those payments reached him.
Prosecutors alleged that Don Ritto received and held corrupt proceeds from Febrie, either directly or through Hongkiriwang, and used transactions outside The Clan's operations to disguise their source. Although he was not alleged to have directly coerced Tan Kian, prosecutors argued that receiving, storing and concealing the proceeds made him a participant in the alleged offense.
Don Ritto also said the indictment failed to explain any common intent, instructions or coordinating relationship linking him to Febrie, Nurman and Hongkiriwang. Prosecutors argued that the alleged sequence of receiving, storing and concealing assets indicated a shared purpose, while acknowledging that the existence of any order or agreement between Don Ritto and Febrie must still be proven in court.
Nurman challenges his statement and transaction roles
Nurman denied the allegation that he received 5 million Singapore dollars from Hongkiriwang and passed it to Febrie. He also said he had withdrawn a statement in his examination record, known as the BAP, that he received a backpack from Ferianto and delivered it to Febrie. Nurman said he initially made that statement after an investigator persuaded him that he would be allowed to go home. He submitted an August 10, 2026, letter supporting the retraction.
Prosecutors said his denial, the withdrawn statement and the alleged investigative pressure raise questions about evidence, not the indictment's legal validity. They maintained that the charges do not depend on the retracted BAP statement, but draw on the investigation as a whole, including witness testimony. Judges would assess both the withdrawn account and the retraction letter during the evidentiary stage.
The prosecution did not address the substance of Nurman's allegations against the investigator at this stage, saying they were unrelated to the indictment's validity. It said he could pursue those allegations through the available legal procedures or present them as part of his defense.
Nurman's lawyers separately argued that the money laundering charge did not explain his part in each transaction, described him in seemingly conflicting capacities, and inconsistently listed account numbers and offense dates. They also questioned his relationship with the 29 companies named in the indictment.
Prosecutors replied that the indictment describes his alleged use of accounts, companies and foundations to place and disguise assets. They said his roles as a private employee, commissioner and foundation manager explain the positions he held in the alleged conduct rather than contradict one another.
The panel is scheduled to issue its interim decision on Monday, October 26, 2026. Prosecutors have asked it to uphold the indictment so the case can advance to the presentation of evidence.
