Nicko Expresses Disappointment as Appellate Court Upholds 3-Year Prison Sentence
The panel of judges at the Jakarta High Court has upheld the verdict from the Central Jakarta Corruption Court against Nicko Widjaja, the defendant in the alleged corruption case involving investments in the TaniHub Group.
In reading the appellate decision, the judges found Nicko Widjaja guilty, maintaining the sentence of three years in prison and a fine of Rp 350 million. The decision was met with profound disappointment from Nicko.
He argued that the considerations used in the appellate decision still relied on the initial investigation reports (BAP) and preliminary documents, despite several facts being revealed and altered during the trial. “I am very disappointed, because everything mentioned is still the same as what we saw in the BPL,” said Nicko following the reading of the verdict at the Jakarta High Court, Central Jakarta, on Thursday (3/9/2026).
He questioned why the first-instance court’s decision was upheld when the facts presented during the trial should have received greater attention. He also criticised the failure to mention OJK Regulation (POJK) Number 35 of 2015 regarding the Implementation of Venture Capital Business in the judges’ considerations. According to him, this regulation is crucial for understanding the fundamental nature of venture capital business.
Furthermore, Nicko believes that the approach of questioning investments in loss-making companies could have serious implications for the startup and venture capital ecosystem. This concern is heightened because many investments in Indonesian technology companies involve foreign capital. Nicko noted that a large portion of TaniHub’s investment originated from Singaporean investors. He argued that uncertainty regarding investment risk could make foreign investors increasingly cautious or even afraid to inject capital into Indonesia. He even predicted that the verdict could potentially set back the development of the venture capital ecosystem significantly. “It is a 10-year setback. We are returning to 2015,” he stated. For Nicko, the situation is ironic because venture capital is designed to support growing companies, rather than solely financing established and profitable ones.
Nicko’s lawyer, Ditho Sitompoel, revealed that there were issues in understanding state losses that led the appellate judges to uphold the lower court’s verdict. Ditho stated that the panel of judges declared that losses had occurred, or were an ‘actual loss’, based on testimony from BPKP experts stating that losses occurred when state funds were disbursed.
“In our view, this approach is insufficient to prove the existence of real and certain state losses, as one must look holistically at the investment’s development, asset conditions, the recovery process, and the economic value still attached to the investment. In this case, the investment position is still a floating loss, not a final loss that has clearly disappeared entirely,” he explained.
Furthermore, this issue becomes increasingly important because the investment object exists within the venture capital ecosystem, which inherently carries high risk. Venture capital does not operate on the principle of only placing funds in profitable companies, but rather invests in developing companies with growth potential. Therefore, a loss in one period does not automatically mean the investment has failed or that the entire investment value has been lost. “We also see a broader impact on the Indonesian investment ecosystem if business risk is subsequently treated the same as actual state losses. This decision will certainly damage the existing venture capital investment ecosystem in Indonesia,” Ditho clarified.
Another lawyer for Nicko, Philipus Harapenta Sitepu, highlighted the inconsistency between POJK 15/2025 and the judges’ considerations. According to Philipus, this indicates a fundamental logical issue. If a venture capital professional executes a mandate to find developing companies with potential, then the condition of a company not yet generating profit should not automatically serve as a basis for blaming investment decisions. “This means there is an inconsistency from the government. Therefore, this issue needs attention from the government and the OJK to prevent differences in interpretation between regulatory objectives and their application in the law enforcement process,” he said.
Regarding the next steps following this appellate decision, the legal team stated they would discuss the matter further with Nicko and his family. The legal team has 14 days to determine whether to accept the appellate decision or to file an appeal (cassation) to the Supreme Court.