Rp 1.3 Billion Cash-Purchased Lexus Car Forcibly Repossessed by DC, BFI Finance Responds
The case of the attempted forcible repossession of a Lexus car purchased for cash at Rp 1.3 billion by debt collectors (DC) continues to have long-reaching consequences. BFI Finance, the financing company overseeing the DCs, has assured that it has followed up by communicating with the relevant parties.
“As per our latest update on the issue, since it emerged, we have continuously communicated with the relevant parties to address the problem,” said BFI Finance’s Corporate Communication representative, Rizky Adelia Risyani, quoted from detikJatim on Monday (27/4/2026).
Adelia stated that her company will remain committed to following all existing procedures in accordance with applicable regulations. “At BFI Finance, we are committed to carrying out every process in line with applicable regulations to provide the best service to all parties,” she said.
The alleged forcible repossession of Andy Pratomo’s Lexus RX350, which he bought outright for Rp 1.3 billion, occurred on 4 November 2025. The case proceeded to mediation at the Mulyorejo Police Sector. There, Andy discovered discrepancies between his vehicle’s physical details and BFI Finance’s documents.
“The police cross-checked photos from the BPKB and invoice from BFI; there was something odd—the BPKB stated RX250, whereas no such Lexus model as RX250 exists in the world. Meanwhile, my vehicle’s physical BPKB and STNK indeed show Lexus RX350,” Andy explained in a written statement received by detikJatim on Sunday (26/4/2026).
Not only regarding the vehicle type, the name on the fiduciary documents was also vastly different. Andy emphasised that his vehicle was not under credit status, yet the leasing company showed files in another person’s name.
“Even more amusingly, BFI showed me a fiduciary agreement in the name of Adi Hosea who was credited with BFI, whereas I bought this car cash,” he stressed.
Andy added that the validity of his documents had been verified by the authorities during a check at the Manyar Kertoarjo Samsat, while the leasing company failed to attend the scheduled meeting.
In response to these irregularities, Andy’s legal counsel, Ronald Talaway, assessed the actions as purely criminal violations. According to him, even though the seizure did not succeed due to resistance and mediation, the criminal elements remain.
“The act of forcing to seize a fully paid-off car can certainly be categorised as the crime of unpleasant conduct, because based on Article 448 of the new Criminal Code, ‘forcing’ is the dominant element in that criminal offence,” Ronald stated.
As a result of the document irregularities and intimidation, Andy’s side plans to demand severe sanctions against the financing company.
“Regarding losses, both material and immaterial, our client will pursue a civil lawsuit route, and not only that—to prevent similar incidents, we will coordinate with OJK as well as the PASTI Task Force and consumer protection institutions so they can consider revoking the business licence for public safety,” Ronald concluded.