The latest corruption scandal in Indonesia has sent shockwaves through the nation, revealing a web of bribery involving high-ranking officials, leading business figures, and even the Chief Judge of the South Jakarta District Court, Muhammad Arif Nuryanta. The controversy surfaced during a period when cooking oil became scarce, starting in late 2021 and continuing into early 2022.

This shortage coincided with a dramatic rise in the price of crude palm oil (CPO), a major ingredient in cooking oil, which was exacerbated by global disruptions caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Despite Indonesia being the world’s largest producer of CPO, the nation was not immune to the crisis, leading to widespread domestic shortages, as reported by Tempo.

In an attempt to address the issue, the government, under Trade Minister Muhammad Lutfi, introduced several measures, including the introduction of a retail price cap for packaged cooking oil through Trade Minister Regulation No. 1 of 2022. However, these policies failed to resolve the supply crisis. Further initiatives, such as a limited export ban and a domestic market obligation (DMO), also proved ineffective.

The Attorney General’s Office later revealed that several major palm oil firms had exploited the regulations. Well-known industry names—such as Wilmar Group, Musim Mas Group, and Permata Hijau Group—were accused of prioritising crude palm oil exports over fulfilling local needs, worsening the supply crisis. In June 2023, they were formally identified as corporate offenders, with the Public Prosecutor seeking fines and reparations for the considerable financial harm caused by their actions.

The financial implications were severe:

• Wilmar Group was accused of causing losses amounting to IDR 8.5 trillion (approximately $505mn), with restitution set at IDR 11.88 trillion (approximately $705mn).

• Musim Mas Group faced IDR 4.8 trillion (approximately $285mn) in losses, with restitution of IDR 4.89 trillion (approximately $290mn).

• Permata Hijau Group's actions resulted in state losses of IDR 186bn (approximately $11mn), and losses in the household and business sectors totaling IDR 626bn (approximately $37mn).

Prior to these corporations being named as suspects, five individuals, including former senior government officials and employees from the companies involved had been convicted. These individuals, however, were acquitted by the court on the grounds that their actions, although proven, did not constitute a criminal offence.

The situation grew more severe when suspected interference within the judiciary came to light. Findings from the Attorney General’s Office pointed to a corruption scheme implicating Chief Judge Muhammad Arif Nuryanta, who was alleged to have received a bribe of IDR60bn (approximately $3.56mn) in exchange for dismissing legal charges against the three companies. The payment was reportedly coordinated by solicitors Marcella Santoso and Ariyanto, and eventually handed over by individuals linked to the Wilmar Group.

Bribery Chronology

Kompas reported the sequence of events in the bribery case, as narrated by the Director of Investigations at the Deputy Attorney General for Special Crimes, Abdul Qohar, during a press conference at the Attorney General’s Office on April 15 2025, as follows:

1. Initial Discussions: The scheme began when lawyer Ariyanto and court clerk Wahyu Gunawan discussed the possibility of bribing a judge to help the corporate defendants in the cooking oil corruption case. Wahyu informed Ariyanto that the case could result in severe penalties for the defendants unless it was managed favourably.

2. Preparing the Funds: Ariyanto, representing the corporate defendants, spoke with fellow lawyer Marcella Santoso, who confirmed that Wahyu could assist with the case. This information was relayed to Wilmar Group, represented by Muhammad Syafei.

3. Contacting Judge Ali Muhtarom: Two weeks later, Wahyu reached out to Judge Ali Muhtarom, and Ariyanto instructed Marcella to prepare IDR20bn (around $1.1mn) to secure a favourable ruling.

4. Meeting with Judge Nuryanta: The three — Ariyanto, Wahyu, and Judge Muhammad Arif Nuryanta — met at a seafood restaurant in Kelapa Gading, Jakarta. During this meeting, Judge Nuryanta indicated that a full acquittal would not be possible, but a dismissal was achievable. He also raised the amount required from IDR20bn to IDR60bn (around $3.56mn).

5. Agreement and Delivery: Following this meeting, Wahyu informed Ariyanto about the new sum, which was subsequently agreed upon by Wilmar Group's representative, Muhammad Syafei. The funds, consisting of both US dollars and Singapore dollars, were to be delivered.

6. Final Payment: Three days later, Muhammad Syafei contacted Marcella to inform her that the funds were ready. The money was handed over to Ariyanto in a parking area in the SCBD area of South Jakarta. Ariyanto then delivered the funds to Wahyu Gunawan’s residence in Cilincing, North Jakarta, where the money was ultimately passed to Judge Muhammad Arif Nuryanta. In return, the judge provided Wahyu with $ 50,000 (around IDR750mn). 

Current status and legal implications

The legal ramifications of the bribery are far-reaching. The Attorney General’s Office has now named Muhammad Syafei, Wilmar Group’s legal officer, as a suspect in the case. Syafei was questioned by investigators from the Special Crimes Division (Jampidsus) at the Attorney General’s Office on April 14, 2025, as reported by Reuters.

Meanwhile in their interview with BBC Indonesia, Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) has pointed out that corporations can be held legally accountable for such corruption under the Corruption Crime Act (UU Tipikor) No. 20 of 2001. The law allows businesses to be prosecuted if they benefit from illegal activities or fail to prevent such crimes. However, ICW researcher Muhammad Yassar noted that Indonesia's legal framework remains weak, as the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) lacks clear provisions for prosecuting corporations. As of 2023, out of 898 corruption defendants, only three companies faced charges.

Legal experts also suggest that should the corporations be found guilty, they could face significant penalties, including fines and the revocation of their business licences. ICW also highlighted that bribery cases involving judges are an ongoing issue in Indonesia, with 29 judges implicated in such scandals since 2011.

Bribery and corruption in Indonesia are primarily governed by Law No. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption, which was amended by Law No. 20 of 2001. This legal framework is further supported by provisions in the Indonesian Penal Code (KUHP) and the law establishing the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). Under these laws, individuals found guilty of corruption may face severe penalties, including life imprisonment, substantial fines amounting to billions of rupiah, and the confiscation of unlawfully obtained assets.

This latest scandal underscores the challenges Indonesia faces in combating high-level corruption and raises concerns about the effectiveness of its judicial and corporate oversight systems.