Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsCan't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsProsecutors charged Amsal Christy Sitepu for allegedly putting marked-up budgets on his proposal to make profile videos for 20 villages in Karo regency, North Sumatra, from 2020 to 2022.
Amsal Christy Sitepu (center) is flanked by his defense lawyers while giving a statement to journalists after the Medan District Court in North Sumatra acquitted him of all charges on April 1, 2026. Prosecutors had accused him of marking up budgets in his proposal to make profile videos for 20 villages in Karo regency, North Sumatra, from 2020 to 2022. (kompas.com/Tisson)
edan District Court in North Sumatra acquitted on Wednesday videographer Amsal Christy Sitepu of all charges of marking up the price of creating profile videos for villages in Karo regency, North Sumatra, to the tune of Rp 202.16 million (US$11,907). Presiding Judge Yusafrihardi Girsang said the defendant had not committed a crime as charged by prosecutors, either in the primary or subsidiary indictments.
“I hereby, declare the defendant Amsal Christy Sitepu acquitted of all charges and restore his rights, positions and dignity,” he said when reading the verdict.
The verdict dismissed charges by prosecutors who demanded a two-year prison term. In addition to the two years’ imprisonment, prosecutors from Karo Prosecutor’s Office had also demanded on Feb. 20 that Amsal pay a fine of Rp 50 million and pay restitution of Rp 202 million.
Amsal was charged under Article 3 in conjunction with Article 18 of the Corruption Eradiation Law in the production of profile videos for 20 villages in Karo.
The case began when Amsal, through his firm CV Promiseland, offered to make profile videos for Rp 30 million per village in Karo from 2020 to 2022 for about 20 villages. Audit results, however, said that the reasonable estimate for the cost should have been Rp 24.1 million per video. The cost difference became the base for mark-up allegations leading to the legal process.
Prosecutors argued that several activities in the budget plan should have been set at zero rupiah, instead of charging for the activities, such as the concept or idea, editing, cutting and dubbing. Prosecutors also said that usage of equipment should not be included in the budget plan because the defendant already had the equipment.
The case went viral after prosecutors said that such activities should not have been invoiced.
Share your experiences, suggestions, and any issues you've encountered on The Jakarta Post. We're here to listen.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. We appreciate your feedback.
Quickly share this news with your network—keep everyone informed with just a single click!
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Get the best experience—faster access, exclusive features, and a seamless way to stay updated.