Adhiya Muzzaki Acquitted in Obstruction of Investigation in Three Corruption Cases

Defendant Adhiya Muzzaki has been acquitted in the obstruction of investigation case linked to three corruption matters. The judge, Efendi, reading the verdict at the Jakarta Pusat Corruption Court in the early hours of Wednesday, 4 March 2026, said: ‘Convicting, finding the Defendant Adhiya Muzzaki as above, not proven beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty of the crime as charged in the single indictment.’ He added, ‘The Defendant is therefore acquitted from the Prosecution’s charges.’ The judge ordered Adhiya to be released from detention immediately after the verdict and to have his rights in capacity, status, dignity and honour restored. ‘Order the Defendant to be released from detention immediately after the verdict is pronounced,’ the judge stated.

The three corruption cases cited involve governance of tin commodity trading, corruption in sugar imports at the Ministry of Trade, and corruption related to processing export permits for crude palm oil (CPO) or cooking oil. The judge emphasised that proof of obstruction cannot be assessed solely by physical acts, but must also consider the tangible impact of those acts.

The judge noted that Adhiya posted content on social media only after receiving approval from legal counsel Marcella Santoso. The total amount received from Santoso was Rp 864,500,000, which Adhiya used for personal needs and to pay buzzers. ‘Considering that the total payments Adhiya Muzzaki received from witness Marcella Santoso amount to Rp 864,500,000, used by the defendant for personal needs, to pay Rp 1,500,000 per project to buzzers, to assist colleagues with rent payments, and to buy laptops for buzzers requiring them for studies,’ the judge said.

The judge further ruled that Adhiya’s postings could not automatically be interpreted as evidence of malicious intent to thwart investigations; rather, they represented democratic ethics. The court concluded there was no evidence of an intent to hinder investigations, prosecutions, or trials in the three corruption cases against the defendant M. Adhiya Muzzaki.

The judge also stated that the evidence in this case should have been heard in a general criminal trial rather than in a corruption court, and that the obstruction charge under Article 21 of the Corruption Law in conjunction with Article 20(c) of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Penal Code was not proven for Adhiya. ‘Therefore, without seeking to prejudge whether the case at hand meets the elements of the offense under Article 27A in conjunction with Article 45(4) of the Information and Electronic Transactions Law, the panel concludes that a general criminal trial is a more appropriate forum than the Corruption Court,’ the judge said.

In this matter, Tian Bahtiar had previously been charged by the public prosecutor (JPU) with a penalty of 8 years’ imprisonment, a Rp 600 million fine, or 150 days of confinement in lieu.