Attorney General's Office Explains Case of Videographer Amsal Sitepu Charged with Corruption
The Attorney General’s Office (Kejagung) has explained the case of alleged corruption in the production of village profile videos in Karo Regency, which implicates a videographer, Amsal Sitepu. This case is said to be part of a larger series of cases with total state losses reaching Rp 1.8 billion.
The Head of Public Relations and Advocacy at Kejagung, Anang Supriatna, explained that the case originates from activities in managing and creating village communication and informatics installation networks for the 2020-2023 fiscal years.
“From reports by the investigation team in Karo Regency, the total losses are actually Rp 1.8 billion, divided among different procurement teams,” Anang told reporters at Kejagung in South Jakarta on Monday (30/3/2026).
He detailed that the largest losses come from one contractor amounting to around Rp 1.1 billion. Meanwhile, other cases involve different companies with losses in the hundreds of millions of rupiah, some of which have already been finalised or are in the appeal process.
The case implicating Amsal Sitepu is the one currently in the public spotlight. Anang stated that the state losses in that case are around Rp 202 million and it is now at the trial stage.
“Now, the one that’s going viral is the trial of Amsal Christy Sitepu; yesterday’s agenda was the prosecution, and now it’s the verdict agenda, with total state losses around Rp 202 million,” Anang clarified.
According to Anang, the alleged corruption in this case is not related to the perpetrator’s technical abilities. Rather, it concerns practices of budget inflation in the Bill of Quantities (RAB). Anang mentioned one example: the rental of a drone budgeted for 30 days, but in fact only carried out for about 12 days.
“So it’s not about skills or abilities, but in the RAB for the activities. For example, for the drone rental activity budgeted for 30 days, but the investigation results show it was only carried out for a few days, 12 days, yet paid in full,” he revealed.
In addition, there were findings of alleged budget duplication, including editing costs budgeted more than once in the RAB. “Costs for editing and all sorts were already budgeted, then doubled,” Anang said.
Anang added that such practices occurred because the preparation of the RAB was allegedly mostly from the contractor side. Meanwhile, village officials did not fully understand the technical details of the activities.
“This is village fund money. Village heads aren’t really that knowledgeable about it. According to investigators, the RAB came from the contractors themselves,” he explained.
Regarding the differing information about editing costs being free, Anang stated that it remains part of the investigators’ findings regarding duplicate budgeting.
Kejagung emphasised that the handling of this case continues in accordance with legal mechanisms, considering all evidence and trial facts.
“Regarding the defendant’s request, go ahead, there are legal mechanisms to follow,” Anang said.
“One of them, after the prosecution yesterday, is the plea of defence from the defendant and legal counsel; they can present it there. Of course, it will be considered by the panel of judges in their decision,” Anang concluded.