Defendant in LNG Corruption Case Calls Prosecutors' Rebuttal an Illusion: No Losses Outside of COVID

Former Gas Director of PT Pertamina, Hari Karyuliarto, described the KPK prosecutors’ rebuttal in the alleged corruption case of liquefied natural gas (LNG) procurement as a legal illusion. Hari stated that the prosecutors’ rebuttal was based on fabricated imagination.

“From the prosecutors’ rebuttal, I conclude that the prosecutors have created a legal illusion based on their own imaginative fabrication. In our defence, for example, we stated that outside of COVID, the contract incurred no losses, only profits,” said Hari at the Central Jakarta Corruption Court, on Thursday (23/4/2026).

Hari claimed there were no losses outside the COVID-19 pandemic period. He alleged that the prosecutors failed to explain the distinction between speculation and reality regarding the contract’s profits and losses.

“But instead of verifying that it is true, there were no losses, and that is indeed the reality—no losses outside COVID. They merely stated that the contract lacked a back-to-back arrangement, hence it was speculative. The difference between speculation and the reality that the contract was profitable and loss-making was not explained by the prosecutors,” he said.

Hari opined that the prosecutors had created a trap in this case. He professed readiness to refute all aspects of the prosecutors’ rebuttal in the duplication hearing next week.

“So, in conclusion, the most important matter regarding state losses—they have created an illusion, a trap. An illusion based on the prosecutors’ own imaginative fabrication,” said Hari.

“Well, this is certainly not true, and therefore, we will prepare a duplication to be read out on Monday,” he added.

Furthermore, Hari is convinced there were no state losses in this case. He referenced the profits gained in 2019-2024.

“Suppose there is a loss of 113 million dollars, but in 2019, 2022, 2023, and 2024, they profited 210 million. If I am to be held accountable for the 113, then please give me the 210 million so I can compensate for the loss. This is arbitrary. This is arbitrary. It does not use normal logical thinking,” he said.

Previously, two defendants in the alleged LNG procurement corruption case were demanded to serve 5.5 and 6.5 years in prison. The prosecutors are convinced that both defendants are guilty in the case.

The prosecution hearing was held at the Central Jakarta Corruption Court on Monday (13/4/2026). The two defendants are former Gas Director of PT Pertamina, Hari Karyuliarto, and former VP of Strategic Planning Business Development in Pertamina’s Gas Directorate, Yenni Andayani.

“To declare that defendant I Hari Karyuliarto Yulianto and defendant II Yenni Andayani have been legally and convincingly proven guilty of committing the criminal act of corruption as charged in the first indictment, violating Article 603 in conjunction with Article 20 letter c in conjunction with Article 126 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code,” said the prosecutor while reading the prosecution verdict.

“To impose a prison sentence on defendant I Hari Karyuliarto of 6 years and 6 months,” added the prosecutor.

The prosecutors demanded that Hari pay a fine of Rp 200 million. If the fine is not paid, it will be replaced with imprisonment for 80 days.

“As well as a fine of Rp 200,000,000 subsidiary to replacement imprisonment for 80 days,” said the prosecutor.

Meanwhile, the prosecutors demanded a 5.5-year prison sentence for Yenni. The prosecutors also demanded that Yenni pay a fine of Rp 200 million subsidiary to 80 days of imprisonment.

“To impose a prison sentence on defendant two Yenni Andayani of 5 years and 6 months as well as a fine of Rp 200,000,000 subsidiary to replacement imprisonment for 80 days,” said the prosecutor.

The prosecutors stated that aggravating factors in the demands include the defendants not supporting the government’s programme to realise a clean government free from corruption, collusion, and nepotism. Furthermore, the defendants’ actions are deemed to have damaged public trust in state institutions or government bodies in law enforcement.

“Lightening factors for the defendants: they have never been punished before, the defendants were polite in the trial,” said the prosecutor.