Reasons Prosecutors Demand Rp 5.6 Trillion in Restitution from Nadiem Makarim
The prosecution hearing for Nadiem Makarim took place at the Jakarta Corruption Court on Wednesday (13/5/2026). Prosecutors are convinced that the Rp 5.6 trillion in restitution represents unlawful wealth enjoyed by Nadiem in connection with this procurement.
“That there are legal facts in the description of the element of self-enrichment, the defendant, others, or a corporation have been fully outlined, so the defendant in the aforementioned case must be imposed with restitution equal to what was enjoyed, namely Rp 809,596,125,000 (Rp 809 billion) and Rp 4,871,469,603,758 (Rp 4.8 trillion),” stated the prosecutor while reading out the indictment against Nadiem.
Prosecutors stated that Nadiem should prove the source of his wealth acquisition in this case examination. This is to demonstrate that the assets originate from legitimate income.
“However, in the examination, the defendant should exercise his right to prove that the unbalanced wealth is not from the proceeds of corruption, by providing truthful statements regarding the legitimate income in the form of salary or other accountable earnings,” he said.
Prosecutors said Nadiem instead chose to provide statements lacking substance to explain the acquisition of that wealth. Prosecutors are convinced that Nadiem could not prove the source of that wealth and believe it to be part of the profits that enriched Nadiem in relation to this procurement.
“Thus, in the trial process, the defendant could not prove that the money amounting to Rp 809,596,125,000 and Rp 4,871,469,603,758 constitutes wealth unbalanced with his income or the source of his wealth increase,” said the prosecutor.
“Therefore, that statement can be used to strengthen the existing evidence that the defendant has committed a corruption offence, so the defendant should be imposed with restitution of Rp 809,596,125,000 and Rp 4,871,469,603,758,” he added.
Prosecutors alluded to the white-collar crime scheme or “white monkey crime” in the Chromebook procurement. Prosecutors are convinced that this scheme was used to disguise or enrich Nadiem.
“Thus, it can be ascertained that the management scheme of PT AKAB, PT GOTO, PT Gojek Indonesia, or other affiliated companies is a scheme to disguise or enrich the defendant in the white-collar crime regime. This scheme is also used in the money laundering offence regime,” stated the prosecutor.
Accordingly, the total restitution that Nadiem must pay is based on the prosecutors’ conviction regarding the flow of money enjoyed by Nadiem. The amount is a money placement of Rp 809,596,125,000 (Rp 809 billion) and an increase in Nadiem’s State Organiser Wealth Report (LHPKN) for 2022 of Rp 4,871,469,603,758 (Rp 4.8 trillion). Thus, the total is Rp 5,681,066,728,758 (Rp 5.6 trillion).
Previously, former Minister of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology Nadiem Makarim was demanded an 18-year prison sentence. Prosecutors are convinced that Nadiem is guilty in the corruption case of Chromebook laptop procurement and Chrome Device Management (CDM).
“Prosecuting so that the panel of judges declares the defendant Nadiem Anwar Makarim has been legally and convincingly proven guilty of committing corruption offences carried out jointly,” stated prosecutor Roy Riady while reading out the verdict demand at the Central Jakarta Corruption Court, Wednesday (13/5/2026).
“Imposing a prison sentence on the defendant Nadiem Anwar Makarim therefore for 18 years,” added the prosecutor.
Nadiem is demanded to pay a fine of Rp 1 billion or subsidiary 190 days’ imprisonment. In addition, prosecutors demand that Nadiem pay restitution of Rp 809,596,125,000 (Rp 809 billion) and Rp 4,871,469,603,758 (Rp 4.8 trillion) or a total of Rp 5,681,066,728,758 (Rp 5.6 trillion).
Prosecutors stated that Nadiem’s assets can be confiscated and auctioned to cover the restitution. However, if insufficient, it will be replaced with 9 years’ imprisonment.
Prosecutors are convinced that Nadiem is guilty of violating Article 603 in conjunction with Article 18 of the Corruption Offences Law in conjunction with Article 20 letter c of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code.