Karo District Prosecutor's Office Details Alleged Corruption Methods of Videographer Amsal Sitepu
The Head of Intelligence at the Karo District Prosecutor’s Office, Dona Martinus Sebayang, has spoken out about the alleged corruption case related to the production of village profiles that ensnared videographer Amsal Sitepu. The alleged budget markup in this case is based on calculations by state loss experts from the Karo Regency Inspectorate.
Initially, Dona explained that the work performed by Amsal did not match the Budget Plan (RAB) and the tender documents. This led to state losses of Rp 202 million.
“Court facts show that Amsal submitted a proposal and RAB of Rp 30 million with a 30-day implementation period as per the agreement with the village head. However, facts uncovered by investigators and during the prosecutor’s trial reveal that Amsal Sitepu did not adhere to the timeline or the work specified in the RAB or tender documents,” Dona stated when contacted, as reported by detikcom on Monday (30/3/2026).
“Yet Amsal Sitepu received 100 percent of the offered payment, which contradicts RKPP No. 12 of 2009 on guidelines for village goods procurement procedures and the Regent’s Regulation No. 38 of 2020 on village goods and services procurement,” she continued.
Modus Operandi of Amsal Sitepu’s Corruption According to the Karo Prosecutor’s Office
In producing the village profile videos, Dona said, Amsal Sitepu also engaged in double items in the work. It appeared as though the work items were different in the video profile production.
“Amsal created double items in the RAB work but made them seem like different items, namely in video design production worth Rp 9 million. Amsal then included the budget item again as editing, cutting, dubbing, each budgeted at Rp 1 million, whereas according to experts, editing, cutting, and dubbing are the same as video design production, so editing, cutting, and dubbing are considered losses,” she explained.
Village Head Used as Talent but Not Paid
In producing the village profile video, Dona continued, Amsal asked the village head to allocate Rp 4 million for talent costs. However, Amsal did not pay the village head despite using him as a talent in the village profile video.
“Amsal asked the village head to create a Rp 4 million talent cost in the village profile video production, involving the village head and village officials, but Amsal did not pay the talent fees to each of them. Thus, this is calculated as state loss or fictitious because it was requested but not paid,” she emphasised.
Furthermore, Dona explained that in the RAB, Amsal rented three cameras and a drone with varying rental periods. Dona also mentioned that Amsal only visited for 3 to 4 days.
“In the RAB, Amsal rented three cameras for 30 days at Rp 20,000 per camera, totalling Rp 1.8 million. For one drone for 10 days at Rp 500,000 per day, totalling Rp 5 million. The defendant only visited for 3-4 days; the village profile video shooting and drone footage were done in just one day, yet the drone costs were calculated for the entire period the defendant was in the village,” she revealed.
Dona also noted that the state loss calculation due to Amsal Sitepu’s work is based on the details above. The losses are calculated per village, with varying amounts.
“In Tiga Nderket Subdistrict, one village suffered losses of Rp 10 million; in Tiga Binangga Subdistrict, one village Rp 9 million. In Tigapanah Subdistrict, 11 villages lost Rp 76 million; in Naman Teran Subdistrict, 7 villages lost Rp 76 million, with a total overall exceeding Rp 202 million,” Dona said.
She stated that Amsal engaged in non-payments and budget markups in producing village profile videos in Karo Regency.
“There were non-payments and budget markups based on state loss calculations by experts from the Karo Regency Inspectorate,” she stressed.