This is the chronology of the theft at Bibi Kelinci, up to the owner being named a suspect

Jakarta – The owner of the Bibi Kelinci restaurant in Kemang, Mampang Prapatan, South Jakarta, Nabilah O’Brien, explained the chronology of a food theft that eventually led to her being named as a suspect. ‘The case occurred on 19 September 2025 at 22:51 Western Indonesian Time. At that time, a married couple identified by the initials Z and E entered the restaurant and ordered 14 food and beverage products,’ said Nabilah’s legal counsel, Goldie Natasya Swarovski, at a press conference at the Bibi Kelinci Restaurant in Jakarta on Friday.

Goldie explained that the matter began when the couple placed an order at the restaurant. They then entered the kitchen, which is a customers-only restricted area, because they felt their order had not yet been delivered. ‘Not long after, the two individuals engaged in intimidation by forcing entry into the kitchen, which is a restricted area for customers. Restricted means prohibited, right. And it sparked a commotion,’ she said.

Additionally, Z and E also subjected staff to other verbal abuses. ‘At 00:00 WIB they left the premises without paying a single rupiah. Our staff, Rahmat, brought the Electronic Data Capture (EDC) machine to chase them for payment, but they ignored it,’ she said.

Subsequently, Nabilah uploaded CCTV footage of the incident involving Z and E on 20 September to her personal social media account. Goldie said the post received a positive reaction from many people.

Following the post, Nabilah issued a cease-and-desist letter on 24 September demanding an open apology. She wanted Z and E to apologise to the staff and acknowledge all of their actions.

Then, on 25 September, Nabilah filed a report with the Mampang Prapatan Police Station for the theft. Two days later, on 27 September, Nabilah was counter-sued by Z and E. Goldie said Z and E demanded compensation of Rp1 billion for losses they claimed to have suffered from Nabilah’s CCTV posting. ‘There is something funny here, because they counter-sued our client with a Rp1 billion claim for the losses they felt from Ms Nabilah’s posting,’ she said.

Subsequently, on 30 September, Z and E reported Nabilah to the Police for alleged violations of the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE), defamation and slander. Then, on 30 September and 17 November, mediation was attempted by the Mampang Police and Bareskrim for both parties. Goldie stated that Z and E demanded Rp1 billion as a condition of settlement.

On 18 November, Nabilah sent a draft settlement agreement without material conditions, withdrawing the reports from both Polsek and Bareskrim simultaneously. ‘In addition to Rp1 billion, our client was asked to apologise to the entire public, to the family, and even to admit that our client had slandered Z and Mrs E, had committed defamation and instructed our client to do things that we already know the truth of through the CCTV,’ she said.

Without a settlement, the investigation continued, and on 24 February, Z and E were named suspects based on the police’s scheduled fact-finding (gelar perkara) at Mampang Prapatan. Nevertheless, just a few days later, Nabilah was named a suspect on 28 February 2026. Goldie described this as odd because the suspect designation was very rapid, given that the fact-finding had only occurred two days earlier. ‘It turns out the gelar perkara occurred on 26 February and my client was sent the suspect designation letter on Saturday, 28 February 2026. This is odd because the process for naming a suspect isn’t that straightforward,’ she said.