Compensation Penalty Increased to Rp 13.4 Trillion, Kerry Riza to File Cassation Appeal

Muhamad Kerry Riza, the beneficial owner of PT Orbit Terminal Merak (OTM), has stated he will file a cassation appeal against the Jakarta High Court’s appellate ruling. In its decision, the Jakarta High Court increased Kerry Riza’s compensation penalty to approximately Rp 13.4 trillion, up from the previous Rp 2.9 trillion. “I just had a whispered conversation with Mr Kerry. He will consider taking further legal action through cassation,” said Kerry Riza’s legal counsel, Patra M Zen, following the appellate ruling hearing at the Jakarta High Court on Wednesday, 10 June 2026. Patra stated that this legal step was taken because the panel of judges’ considerations were deemed mistaken and flawed. He emphasised that he would continue to fight for justice for his client. “Because it is firm, clear, and plainly visible that the panel’s considerations are mistaken and flawed. Therefore, I only want to say one phrase: aluta continua, the struggle continues! Hopefully, we will all eventually see that Mr Kerry will be granted justice,” he said. Patra M Zen stated that from the outset he had not harboured high hopes for the examination process at the appellate level, as he believed the panel of judges did not genuinely seek facts and material truth. This was because the panel did not summon witness Irawan Prakoso, a key witness in the case, during the trial proceedings. The presiding judge had previously decided to summon Irawan Prakoso, but that decision was later revised. Furthermore, in its legal considerations, the Jakarta High Court panel mentioned Irawan Prakoso’s name. “In the decision’s considerations, we heard the name Irawan Prakoso mentioned again by this same panel, which revised its own decision. If the high court judges genuinely wanted to seek material truth from the beginning, why did they not hear the testimony of the witness we presented?” said Patra M Zen. Additionally, he claimed the Jakarta High Court panel frequently cut short witness testimonies during the appellate hearings. Therefore, he considered the case examination in the trial to be merely a formality or pro forma to implement the new Criminal Procedure Code.