Two Corruption Defendants in Beluhu Village Credit Institution Case Sentenced Below Prosecution's Demands
The Denpasar District Court’s Corruption Panel imposed a ten-year prison sentence on two defendants in the corruption case involving funds from the Beluhu Village Credit Institution (LPD) of Beluhu Traditional Village, Tulamben, Karangasem: Ika Susetiyana Ambarwati and Henny Kusmoyo. The verdict was lighter than the prosecution’s earlier demand for 16 years imprisonment.
The ruling was delivered in a hearing presided over by Presiding Judge Putu Gde Novyartha. In addition to the prison sentence, both defendants were also ordered to pay fines of 500 million rupiah each. If the fines remain unpaid, they will be replaced with 180 days of imprisonment.
“We find and declare that defendants Ika Susetiyana Ambarwati and Henny Kusmoyo have been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty of committing corruption offences jointly,” stated Gde Novyartha in the ruling at the Denpasar District Court on Monday (2 March 2026).
The trial revealed that Henny Kusmoyo received and used LPD funds totalling approximately 14 billion rupiah without a valid credit agreement. These funds were obtained with the approval of Ika Susetiyana Ambarwati, who held the position of LPD Chairperson at the time.
The funds were disbursed without following the applicable credit procedures and were not supported by valid loan agreement documentation. Consequently, the funds could not be accounted for and resulted in financial losses to the institution.
Previously, the public prosecutor from the Karangasem District Prosecutor’s Office had sought a 16-year prison sentence for Henny Kusmoyo, a fine of 750 million rupiah with an alternative of 165 days imprisonment, and compensation payments of 14.24 billion rupiah.
The prosecution argued that the defendants’ actions fulfilled the elements of corruption offences, as they had abused authority and facilities resulting in state financial losses.
Nevertheless, the judges imposed a lighter sentence than the prosecution’s demand, taking into account the facts presented in court and the circumstances that aggravated and mitigated the defendants’ culpability.