Company Fined Rp115 Billion and Business Frozen for Tax Fraud

A company with the initials SBAT, represented by its management official JJ, has been sentenced to a fine of Rp115.05 billion by the Bale Bandung District Court, along with a two-year freeze on all corporate business activities, after being found to have falsified tax invoices.

The court ruling was made after the West Java I Regional Office of the Directorate General of Taxes (Kanwil DJP) obtained evidence that the corporation had issued and used tax invoices that were not based on actual transactions, resulting in losses to state revenue.

“Law enforcement is not solely aimed at imposing sanctions, but also at maintaining the integrity of the taxation system, creating a sense of justice for taxpayers who have fulfilled their tax obligations, and encouraging increased voluntary tax compliance,” said Nandang Hidayat, Head of the Audit, Collection, Intelligence, and Investigation Division (P2IP) of Kanwil DJP West Java I, in a press release on Wednesday (12/8/2026).

The criminal fine of Rp115.05 billion is four times the amount of loss to state revenue as calculated based on the Minutes of Expert Opinion on Taxation and/or Expert Calculation of State Revenue Losses.

In addition to the criminal fine and the additional penalty of freezing all corporate business activities for two years, the panel of judges also imposed court costs of Rp10,000. According to the ruling, the criminal fine must be paid no later than one month after the decision becomes legally binding and may be extended for a maximum of one month.

The ruling is the result of a series of law enforcement processes carried out by Kanwil DJP West Java I in accordance with statutory regulations.

The process began with supervision activities and preliminary evidence examination, followed by investigation by Civil Servant Investigators (PPNS) and prosecution in court.

During the investigation, PPNS of Kanwil DJP West Java I obtained evidence that the corporation had issued and used tax invoices that were not based on actual transactions, resulting in losses to state revenue.

For these actions, the Public Prosecutor charged the defendant under Article 39A letter a in conjunction with Article 43 paragraph (1) of Law Number 6 of 1983 concerning General Provisions and Tax Procedures, as amended several times, most recently by Law Number 6 of 2023.