The alleged “markup” case involving videographer Amsal Christy Sitepu in connection with the creation of village profile videos in Karo Regency, North Sumatra, highlights “the stuttering implementation of the new Criminal Code (KUHP) and Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) by law enforcement,” according to the Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR). Prosecutors had previously charged Amsal, seeking a two-year prison sentence, a Rp50 million fine (or six months additional confinement), and restitution of Rp202 million.
In his plea, Amsal vehemently denied the allegations, asserting that he harbored no malicious intent to commit corruption. He argued that all video production elements, including concept development, ideation, editing, cutting, dubbing, and microphone usage, are integral to creating audiovisual works, not a “markup” as accused. The significant public attention drawn to this case on social media has prompted the House of Representatives’ (DPR) Commission III to schedule a Public Hearing on Monday, March 30. Chairman of DPR Commission III, Habiburrokhman, has underscored to law enforcement officials that the spirit of the new KUHP and KUHAP is to deliver substantive justice, moving beyond mere formalistic justice.
The Chronology of the Case
Willyam Raja D. Halawa, legal counsel for Amsal Christy Sitepu, explained that the case originated from a project to create profile videos for 20 villages in Karo Regency, North Sumatra, spanning from 2020 to 2022. Through his company, CV Promiseland, Amsal allegedly offered these video production services at a cost of Rp30 million per village. This offering process was conducted separately, with some villages initially declining before eventually engaging Amsal’s services. Following the acceptance of his proposals, Amsal proceeded to produce the video profiles as agreed.
During the video production, Willyam noted that there were several revisions and improvements before the final products were accepted and paid for by each village. Crucially, he claimed there were no issues or protests from the paying parties throughout this period. “All work was completed. Even some village heads are confused as to why this has become a problem. To date, none of the village heads whose villages received Amsal’s services have been named as suspects,” Willyam stated on Sunday, March 29.
According to Willyam, his client became embroiled in the alleged markup case as a spin-off from an existing corruption investigation being handled by the Karo District Attorney’s Office involving a different service provider. That primary case has seen four individuals indicted, with one currently on the Most Wanted List (DPO). Amsal, who was initially a witness, was named a suspect in November 2025 and subsequently brought to trial as a defendant a month later.
Prosecutors accuse Amsal of submitting improperly constructed, or “marked-up,” proposals to village heads and failing to execute the projects in accordance with the Budget Plan (RAB) for the management and creation of local communication and information networks in villages, specifically for the production of village profile videos. The alleged markups include Rp2 million allocated by CV Promiseland for concept and ideation, which expert calculations and auditors from the Karo Regency Inspectorate deemed should have been Rp0. Similarly, costs for microphones (or clip-ons), cutting, editing, and dubbing were also assessed as Rp0 by the same experts and auditors. As a result of the defendant’s actions, the state financial loss is claimed to be Rp202 million. Amsal was indicted under Article 3 jo Article 18 of Law No. 31 Year 1999 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption, as amended and supplemented by Law No. 20 Year 2001.
Trial Proceedings
During the trial’s witness examination phase, several village heads in Karo Regency testified, expressing their satisfaction with the village profile videos produced by CV Promiseland. Among the witnesses were Sari Mulianta Purba, Head of Kuta Kepar Village, Tiganderket Sub-district; Arianda Purba, Head of Salit Village, Tigapanah Sub-district; and Martinus Sebayang, Head of Perbesi Village, Tigabinanga Sub-district.
Before the panel of judges chaired by Yusafrihardi Girsang, the witnesses affirmed that the video profile work was completed according to the agreed proposals and was deemed beneficial for their respective villages. “We are satisfied with the results of the village profile videos that were produced,” the witnesses stated when questioned by defendant Amsal Sitepu in the courtroom on January 26.
The witnesses elaborated that the process began with CV Promiseland’s proposal, followed by internal deliberations among village officials before an agreement was reached. The village heads highlighted that the profile videos serve as a valuable tool for showcasing their villages’ potential to a wider audience. Furthermore, the witnesses confirmed that all work had been completed, videos delivered, and payments made in full accordance with the contractual agreements. Importantly, taxes on these payments were levied, and all tax obligations were met in compliance with applicable regulations. “Taxes for the work have been paid by the village officials,” Sari Mulianta Purba confirmed. The witnesses also reported that accountability reports for the activities had been audited by the Karo Regency Inspectorate, with no irregularities found. “The budget came from village funds, and during inspections by the inspectorate, no findings were raised,” Martinus Girsang added.
‘No Malicious Intent’
During the reading of his plea (pledoi) or defense, Amsal requested the judicial panel to acquit him, arguing that the prosecution’s charges were not legally and convincingly proven. “I request to be declared purely free, as the public prosecutor’s charges are not legally and convincingly proven,” Amsal stated while reading his defense memorandum at the Cakra V courtroom of the Corruption Court at the Medan District Court on Wednesday, March 4. He further requested that, should the judges rule otherwise, he be given the lightest possible sentence, including probation or a sentence commensurate with the time he has already served in detention.
The trial proceeded under strict security, attended by volunteers from Relawan Pink, who offered moral support to the defendant. In his plea, Amsal adamantly reiterated that he harbored no malicious intent to commit corruption. He emphasized that all aspects of video production—including concepts, ideas, editing, cutting, dubbing, and microphone use—are intrinsic components of audiovisual creation, not “markups” as alleged. Amsal also pointed out the critical fact that the village heads, as the beneficiaries of his services, have not been held accountable, suggesting that the case should fall under civil law rather than criminal law. He further recounted the profound psychological and social impact the case has had on him and his family, including being erroneously labeled a “corruptor” in the media, which he believes contradicts the facts presented in court. Amsal is scheduled to hear his verdict at the Medan District Court on April 1, 2026.
DPR Discusses Amsal Sitepu’s Case
The viral nature of this case has compelled DPR Commission III to hold a Public Hearing on Monday, March 30. Habiburrokhman, Chairman of DPR Commission III, stated that the hearing was convened to address numerous public demands, which perceive elements of injustice in the case. He argued that videography is a creative endeavor without fixed pricing standards, making its valuation often subjective. Consequently, DPR Commission III reminded law enforcement officials that the new KUHP and KUHAP prioritize delivering substantive justice over mere formalistic justice. “The priority in corruption eradication should be the maximization of state financial loss recovery in high-profile cases,” he asserted.
Does Bringing Cases to the DPR Resolve Issues?
Iqbal Muharam Nurfahmi, a researcher at the Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR), observed that since the new Criminal Code (KUHP) and Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) were enacted, several viral and controversial cases have been brought before DPR Commission III. Examples include the case of Hogi Minaya in Sleman Regency, Yogyakarta; Fandi Ramadhan, a ship crew member, in Batam; and now Amsal Christy Sitepu. In Hogi’s case, after discussions with DPR Commission III, the case was ultimately dropped. Conversely, Fandi Ramadhan received a five-year prison sentence, a reduction from the initial demand for the death penalty.
Observing this pattern, Iqbal Muharam believes that “law enforcement officials are still fumbling” with the implementation of these two new regulations. “The implementation timeframe for the KUHP and KUHAP is very short. For KUHAP, it’s only three months, and for KUHP, the transition is two years. That’s a tight schedule,” Iqbal Muharam told BBC News Indonesia on Sunday, March 28. “With so many provisions, is it possible for law enforcement agencies to immediately implement all the rules? As we can see, many cases end up being brought to DPR Commission III.”
Despite the lingering problematic articles related to civil liberties and democracy, Iqbal Muharam noted that the new KUHP actually emphasizes restorative justice, or the resolution of cases outside of court. This implies that imprisonment should be a last resort for offenses punishable by less than five years. The problem, he claims, lies with many articles in the KUHAP that are “excessive,” making it remarkably easy for law enforcement to detain individuals.
ICJR cites Articles 149, 152 paragraph 2, 153, and 154 regarding arrest and detention mechanisms, which are deemed to lack sufficient judicial control, thereby opening avenues for abuse of power. Furthermore, Articles 88 paragraph 1, 88, 89, 90 paragraphs 2 and 3, 93 paragraph 5, 105 letter e, 106 paragraph 4, and 112 paragraph 2 are highlighted by ICJR as regulating coercive measures like arrest and detention with vague wording, posing risks to suspects’ rights. This problematic substance, according to Iqbal Muharam, results in an application that is far from ideal.
“This creates a clash between the KUHAP and KUHP. Perhaps in the KUHP, imprisonment is a last resort, but in the KUHAP, law enforcement can easily carry out detentions,” he explained. “Ultimately, everyone can be detained, leading to chaos.” Amidst this disarray, DPR Commission III is merely acting as a “firefighter” for cases that “happen to go viral on social media,” he argued. Yet, he claims, many cases in court suffer from problematic application. It is here that Iqbal Muharam believes the actions of DPR Commission III do not genuinely address the root causes. “If DPR Commission III only acts as an overseer on a case-by-case basis, this will not solve the structural, systemic problems.” He concluded, “Unless the substance of the regulations is improved and revised, these issues will continue to occur in the future.”
Nanda Batubara, a journalist in Medan, contributed to this report.
- The ‘irrelevant’ pension rules for DPR members – Four things to know from the Constitutional Court’s decision
- From Soeharto to Yaqut Cholil Qoumas – Who are the suspected corruptors who claimed illness and what happened to them?
- Head of BAIS TNI resigns following acid attack on KontraS activist – Could the suspected BAIS TNI soldier have acted on his own initiative?
- When the state arrested young people after the August 2025 demonstrations – ‘The biggest hunt since the 1998 Reformasi’
- Delpedro et al. acquitted in the August 2025 protest incitement case
- Police use weapons ‘without consideration’, killing a teenager in Makassar – ‘If the police shot upwards, how could my son be hit?’
Summary
Videographer Amsal Sitepu faces charges of causing Rp202 million in state financial losses due to alleged “markup” in village profile video projects for 20 villages in Karo Regency, North Sumatra, from 2020-2022. Prosecutors sought a two-year prison sentence, arguing Amsal failed to follow the Budget Plan (RAB) and submitted improper proposals. Amsal vehemently denied any malicious intent, asserting that all video production elements are integral to audiovisual creation, not markups, and that village heads were satisfied with his work.
During the trial, village heads testified their satisfaction with the completed and paid-for videos, with the Karo Regency Inspectorate finding no irregularities in their audits. This viral case prompted a Public Hearing by DPR Commission III and drew attention from the Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR), which highlighted “the stuttering implementation” of Indonesia’s new Criminal Code (KUHP) and Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). ICJR suggests the KUHAP’s ease of detention conflicts with the KUHP’s emphasis on restorative justice, while the DPR merely acts as a “firefighter” for viral cases without addressing systemic issues.