In Jakarta, a civil lawsuit filed by Farly Lumopa against artist Adly Fairuz remains active at the South Jakarta District Court. The case risks nearly IDR 5 billion and centers on alleged fraud related to securing admission to the Police Academy (Akpol).

Lumopa says the dispute arises from a pre-notary agreement involving multiple parties. He emphasizes that civil litigation targets the formal agreement and the duties of those bound by it, rather than criminal charges.

During testimony with the East Jakarta Metro Police, Lumopa described the negotiations that preceded the signed agreement, noting that all named participants—AF (Adly Fairuz), AW, himself, and the notary—were involved in the process.

Lumopa asserts that the agreement was signed only after all parties consented that no amendments would follow. He recalled the notary asking,“Are there any changes? If none,sign,” after which everyone affixed their signatures.

In his testimony, Lumopa revealed he was surprised by the meeting’s arrangements. He expected to meet a figure named General Ahmad but instead encountered Adly Fairuz, which he described as a shock and source of anger directed at another party labeled AW.

Lumopa stressed that he did not participate in the admission process for Akpol. He said his role was limited to witnessing the transfer of funds, as requested by both sides, and that he would collect funds if the arrangement proved legitimate or otherwise.

He chose civil action over criminal proceedings, arguing that the case attaches multiple parties to the agreement and holds them legally accountable.

Regarding refunds,Lumopa said the defendant’s legal team claimed repayment had been made—and even increased by IDR 200 million—from IDR 300 million to IDR 500 million. He contends the claim does not align with the notary’s written terms.

according to Lumopa, the agreement specifies a payment of IDR 500 million per month until September, with sums from May to September not yet totaling IDR 3.65 billion. Any remaining balance, he said, is expected to be settled by the 15th of a given month.

Lumopa also dismissed Adly Fairuz’s denial of receiving only IDR 300 million, noting that civil suits seek compensation for losses rather than criminal guilt. he stated that a fair allocation of the return would involve significant compensation, not a token amount.

Lumopa argues that Adly fairuz’s attempted refunds were insufficient and inconsistent with the agreement’s terms. He asserts that his compensation would amount to roughly 15 percent of IDR 3.65 billion—around IDR 580 million—and maintains that receiving a meager sum would be far from adequate.

Context: Adly Fairuz faces civil litigation for alleged involvement in manipulating admissions to the Police Academy.The claim contends that the process promised graduation slots for a fee as high as IDR 3.65 billion, but the effort did not result in the expected outcomes.although a prior agreement included a refund, lumopa argues that the refund did not adhere to the agreement’s conditions and timelines. The case remains pending in the South Jakarta District Court.

Timeline of salient points

• Pre-notary agreement involved multiple parties and set the stage for the civil dispute.
• the notary reportedly prompted signatures with no changes deemed necessary.
• Lumopa says a meeting with a General Ahmad was expected but did not occur as anticipated.
• The plaintiff asserts that refunds claimed by the defense do not match the agreement.
• The civil case continues with the court examining the binding terms and the parties’ obligations.

what this means for readers

The case highlights how civil procedures revolve around contracts and obligations rather than criminal investigations. It also underscores how notarial agreements can complicate disputes when refunds and timelines are contested.

Engagement questions

What protections should individuals have when paying for opportunities that hinge on formal agreements? How should courts evaluate complex civil disputes involving multiple parties and a notary?

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For matters of law,consult a licensed attorney.

Share your thoughts below and tell us which aspects of civil accountability you think should be strengthened in similar cases. Do you believe civil lawsuits are an effective deterrent in admission-related schemes?