Lessons from the Aek Nabara Church Funds Case
The case that has recently garnered widespread attention on social media involves the Catholic Church of Aek Nabara Parish in Labuhanbatu Regency, North Sumatra.
The issue came to light after church officials grew suspicious over the failure to disburse funds from a Rp 10 billion deposit request that had been pending for more than two months.
These suspicions were confirmed when it was discovered that 28 deposit certificates issued by the local BNI Cash Office head were fictitious.
Tracing the events chronologically, the incident began in 2019 when the BNI Aek Nabara Cash Office head, Andi Hakim Febriansyah, offered an investment product to church officials labelled “BNI Deposito Investment.”
The product promised returns of 8 percent per year, far exceeding the typical bank deposit interest rates of 3-4 percent.
This attractive high yield prompted the Aek Nabara CU Cooperative to place funds gradually, starting from Rp 2 billion and eventually reaching a total of Rp 28 billion.
With growing indications of criminal elements in the case, the North Sumatra Police’s Directorate of Special Criminal Investigation (Ditreskrimsus) named Andi Hakim Febriansyah as a suspect in the alleged embezzlement of funds from the Catholic Church of Aek Nabara Parish in Labuhanbatu Regency, amounting to Rp 28 billion.
This designation follows a report filed on 26 February 2026 by the head of the BNI Rantauprapat Branch, Muhammad Camel, under report number LP/B/327/II/2026. (Polri Public Relations, 19/4/2026)
Based on investigations, the suspect is known to have left the local jurisdiction and fled abroad.
In fact, within two days of the report being filed, the suspect was identified as having departed from Bali to Australia via flight.
The investigation results from Ditreskrimsus of the North Sumatra Police uncovered allegations of systematic document forgery, including the creation of fake deposit certificates and the falsification of customer signatures.
Furthermore, the collected funds are suspected to have been transferred to various accounts, including the suspect’s personal account, his wife’s account, and entities owned by him.
Not only that, the suspect is also alleged to have exploited administrative loopholes by applying for leave before resigning or taking early retirement.
From a legal perspective, the suspect’s actions can no longer be solely qualified as the crime of embezzlement as stipulated in Article 372 of the Criminal Code.