Four-Year Prison Sentence for Ibam Despite Not Receiving Funds in Chromebook Case

Former consultant to ex-Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology Nadiem Makarim, Ibrahim Arief alias Ibam, has been sentenced to four years in prison in the Chromebook and Chrome Device Management (CDM) procurement case. The judge stated that Ibam did not receive direct fund flows but acted as the sole negotiation partner with Google.

“Declaring the Defendant Ibrahim Arief alias Ibam proven legally and convincingly guilty of committing corruption in collaboration as per the subsidised indictment,” said the chief judge Purwanto S Abdullah while reading the verdict at the Central Jakarta Corruption Court, Tuesday (12/5/2026).

“Imposing a prison sentence on the Defendant Ibrahim Arief alias Ibam of four years,” added the judge.

Ibam was also fined Rp 500 million. If the fine is not paid, it will be replaced with 120 days’ imprisonment.

The judge stated that Ibam was guilty of violating Article 3 in conjunction with Article 18 of the Corruption Offences Law in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph 1 first of the old Criminal Code.

Not Proven to Receive Fund Flows

The judge said Ibam’s actions had caused significant state losses. In the verdict, the judge noted that Ibam was not proven to have received fund flows from this case.

“The Defendant’s actions have caused substantial financial losses to the state for the 2020-2021 fiscal year,” said chief judge Purwanto S Abdullah.

The judge stated that Ibam’s actions were also deemed not to support the state’s programme for clean and corruption-free governance, free from collusion and nepotism. The judge mentioned other aggravating factors in the sentencing, namely that Ibam’s actions hindered the mapping of education quality in Indonesia.

“The Defendant’s actions were carried out in the education sector during the 2019 pandemic, resulting in double impacts: financial losses to the state and hindrance to mapping education quality and for Indonesian children,” said the judge.

The judge stated that mitigating factors included Ibam having no prior prison sentence. Additionally, Ibam was stated not to have received money, goods, or facilities related to this procurement.

“Mitigating circumstances: the defendant has never been sentenced to imprisonment before, the defendant was in the position of a technology consultant providing technical input and not as the main policy designer in the Chromebook IT procurement, so the defendant’s role structurally differs from that of public officials setting strategic policies,” said the judge.

“The defendant was not proven to have received direct fund flows from the IT procurement to himself,” added the judge.

The panel of judges did not impose a restitution payment on Ibam. The judge stated that Ibam did not enjoy any benefits from the Chromebook and Chrome Device Management (CDM) procurement during Nadiem’s era.

“Considering that based on all considerations, the panel of judges opines that the Public Prosecutor’s demand to burden the defendant with additional punishment in the form of restitution and subsidised prison sentence cannot be granted, and the panel agrees with the legal counsel’s plea on this part, thus the defendant Ibrahim is not burdened with additional punishment in the form of restitution payment as per Article 18 paragraph 1 letter b of the Corruption Law,” he said.

The judge stated that Ibam did not receive any money, goods, or facilities related to this procurement. The judge did not grant the prosecutor’s demand for restitution payment to Ibam.

“Considering that accordingly, from the series of criminal issues charged against the defendant, it is not proven that he obtained any personal financial or material benefits, whether in the form of money, goods, services, or facilities from the series of IT equipment procurement that is the subject of the case,” said the judge.

Ibam’s Role Revealed by the Judge

The judge stated that Ibam acted as the sole negotiation partner with Google in the Chromebook case. This was conveyed by judge member Sunoto.

The judge said Ibam consistently attended strategic meetings at the Ministry of Education and Culture, and as the presenter of Chromebook to Nadiem. The judge said Ibam also served as the sole negotiation partner with Google.

“Where the defendant’s consistent presence in ministry strategic meetings, the defendant’s role as Chromebook presenter to the minister, the defendant’s name inclusion in three consecutive decisions, the Rp 163 million monthly honorarium received by the defendant, the defendant’s direct communication with ministry structural officials, and the defendant’s role as the sole negotiation partner with Google,” said the judge.

The judge stated that Ibam’s role strengthened the engineer leader position given by Nadiem. The judge stated that Ibam was not a neutral and independent consultant.

“Objectively strengthening the defendant’s position as engineer leader in the Wartek Team and Technical Team, which is a position within the meaning of Article 3 of the Corruption Law as functionally interpreted by the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court,” said the judge.

State Losses in the Chromebook Case

The panel of judges stated that the procurement of Chromebooks and Chrome Device Management (CDM) at the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology during Nadiem Anwar Makarim’s era had caused financial losses to the state. The judge said the total state loss exceeded Rp 5.2 trillion.

“Which directly proves the defendant’s operational involvement in activating Chrome Device Management, the main instrument causing state losses of USD 44,054,426 equivalent to Rp 621,387,678,730,” said judge Sunoto.

“Thus, doctrinally, the defendant has used the opportunities and facilities inherent in his position as engineer leader and technical team member to facilitate the procurement that harmed state finances, and substantively deviated from the resignation he claimed on 26 May 2020 with the last working day on 25 June 2020,” added he.

The judge said there was a price mark-up in the Chromebook laptop procurement in this case. The judge mentioned