The Grab Shop Deception That Successfully Takes Rp.17 Billion Of Consumer Money

JAKARTA - Bareskrim Polri said the effect of spreading alleged false news about the sale of electronic goods at low prices by the suspect, Yudha Manggala Putra, who is the owner of PT Grab Toko, is very large. This is because the distribution has only been carried out for a month and has succeeded in deceiving hundreds of people.

"That the suspect has operationalized his business, namely PT. Grab Toko by reporting false news that is misleading to the detriment of the victim in the period from early December 2020 to early January 2021," said Head of Public Relations Division of the National Police, Kombes Ahmad Ramadhan to reporters, Thursday, 14 January.

Based on the temporary investigation, said Ramadhan, the suspect made a profit of up to Rp17 billion. Apart from the moudus, the big advantage is obtained because almost all the goods ordered never reach the consumer.

"The development of the investigation into the case of PT. Grab Toko which has cost consumers Rp. 17 billion, with 980 victims and only 9 customers who were sent their goods, so the remaining 971 goods were not shipped," he said.

Previously it was reported that the owner of Grab Toko, Yudha Manggala Putra, was arrested on suspicion of embezzlement of consumer money worth IDR 17 billion.

Director of Cyber Crime at Bareskrim Polri Brigadier General Slamet Uliandi said Grab Toko is a website that sells electronic goods at low prices.

"The person concerned was arrested in the area of Selong Village, Kebayoran Baru Subdistrict, Saturday, January 9," Slamet told reporters, Tuesday, January 12.

Slamet said that Yudha's crime was to create an online shopping website. The site lists various electronic goods at low prices so as to attract potential buyers.

But when a prospective buyer orders goods, the majority of buyers never receive the item they want. So, those who feel cheated report it. The report is registered under the number LP / B / 0019 / I / 2021 / Bareskrim.

Thus, in this case Yudha was charged with Article 45 Paragraph 1 in conjunction with Article 28 Paragraph 1 of Law 19/2016 on Electronic Information and Transactions.