Timeline of a Kemang restaurant theft leading to the owner being named a suspect, according to Nabilah O'Brien

The owner of a restaurant in Kemang, Mampang Prapatan, South Jakarta, Nabilah O’Brien, recounted the genesis of a case she describes as food theft by a married couple. The incident began when the couple placed an order at Nabilah’s restaurant. Nabilah’s lawyer, Goldie Natasya Swarovski, said the incident occurred on 19 September 2025 at 22:51. At that time, a married couple identified by the initials Z and E entered the restaurant and ordered 14 food and beverage items.

‘Not long after, the two individuals carried out acts of intimidation by forcing their way into the kitchen area, which is a restricted area for customers. Restricted means it is prohibited, yes, and it caused a commotion,’ Goldie said at a press conference in Kemang, South Jakarta, on Friday (6 March 2026).

Goldie added that Z and E punched the right arm of the head kitchen, Abdul Hamid, and assaulted the chiller while threatening to raid the restaurant. In addition, Z and E allegedly hurled verbal abuse.

‘At 12 o’clock (midnight) they left the premises without paying a single penny. Our staff, Rahmat, took an EDC (card machine) to chase them to make payment, but they ignored it,’ she explained.

Afterwards, Nabilah posted CCTV footage of Z and E’s conduct on 20 September on her personal social media account. Goldie noted that the posting was met with a positive reaction from many people.

‘There were a lot of fellow business people who said thank you to our client because she posted that, so others could be more careful. It turned out that posting had very positive results, roughly like that,’ she said.

Following the posting, Nabilah served a cease-and-desist demand on 24 September, seeking a public apology. She wanted Z and E to apologise to the staff and acknowledge their actions.

‘So our client is simply asking for a public and personal apology to our employees,’ she said.

On 25 September, Nabilah filed a report with the Mampang Prapatan Police Sector for theft. Two days later, on 27 September, Nabilah was served with a counter-cease-and-desist by Z and E.

‘Then it was answered with a response to the cease-and-desist, acknowledging that they had indeed taken the items. Once again, I emphasise that they admitted through their reply to the cease-and-desist that they took the food and drinks,’ she said.

In the cease-and-desist, Goldie said, Z and E demanded Rp 1 billion. They claimed to have suffered losses due to Nabilah’s CCTV posting.

‘But there is something funny here, because they counter-sued our client with a Rp 1 billion claim for damages due to the losses they felt from Bu Nabilah’s post,’ she added.

On 30 September, Z and E reported Nabilah to the Criminal Investigation Agency (Bareskrim) of the Indonesian Police for alleged violations of the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU ITE), defamation, and slander. Mediation between the two sides was conducted by Mampang Prapatan Police and Bareskrim on 30 September and on 17 November.

‘We had mediation twice, facilitated by Bareskrim and the police, but we did not reach an agreement. Based on what we know, they offered a peace agreement that was not acceptable to us,’ Goldie stated.

Goldie said Z and E demanded Rp 1 billion as a condition for peace. On 18 November, Nabilah sent a draft peace agreement without material conditions, withdrawing the reports to the police and Bareskrim concurrently.

‘In addition to Rp 1 billion, our client was asked to apologise to the entire public and family, and to admit that our client had attacked the honour of Mr Z and Mrs E, had engaged in defamation, and had instructed our client to do things that we already know to be true from CCTV,’ she said.

Without a peace agreement, the investigation continued, so on 24 February, Z and E were named suspects following a police case review by the Mampang Prapatan Police.

‘We had provided six witnesses, CCTV footage, copies of the cease-and-desist letters; Mr Z was formally named a suspect on 24 February 2026. However, on the same day, my client was still being questioned for additional statements at Bareskrim,’ she said.

A few days later, Nabilah herself was named a suspect on 28 February 2026. Goldie described this as unusual because the suspect designation was issued only two days after the prior meeting. ‘It turned out the case review took place on 26 February, and my client was issued the suspect letter on Saturday, 28 February 2026. This is odd because obtaining approval to designate a suspect is not that straightforward,’ she added.