Appeal for the TaniHub Investment Case, Nicko's Legal Representative Requests 2 Witnesses to Be Present

The defendant in the BRI Ventures (BVI) investment case to the TaniHub Group, Nicko Widjaja. (Photo: Special)

JAKARTA - The defendant in the BRI Ventures (BVI) investment case against the TaniHub Group, Nicko Widjaja, underwent an appeal hearing at the DKI Jakarta High Court (PT), Thursday, August 13, 2026.

The trial with the agenda of examining witnesses was used by Nicko to strengthen his position in the investment as a professional who runs a company according to procedures and principles of prudence.

After the trial, Nicko's legal advisor, Ditho Sitompoel, said his party hopes that two important witnesses can be re-presented in the appeal trial.

One of them is the founder of TaniHub, Pamitra Wineka, as the largest shareholder of the company.

"The testimony of these two witnesses will have a great influence on the outcome of the verdict," said Ditho.

According to Ditho, there is a discrepancy between the testimony of witnesses presented in the trial and what was later included in the consideration of the District Court's decision. One of them is the validation before the investment decision is made. Ditho emphasized that Nicko had carried out a validation process in stages in accordance with the applicable standard operating procedures.

"Our clients have carried out a tiered process, from top to bottom, they have validated data. Validating according to the SOPs that apply within their company," said Ditho.

The legal team also considered the testimony of witnesses important to explain the use of investment funds of 5 million US dollars.

Nicko's legal advisor, Philipus Harapenta Sitepu, said the testimony of the former CEO of TaniHub, Pamitra Wineka, was needed to explain that the funds were used for investment interests and company needs.

According to Philipus, the funds were used for the company's development needs, including factory construction. "In fact, the statement of TaniHub CEO, Mr. Pamitra Wineka, said that USD 5 million was used for investment, for the company's needs," said Philipus.

In an interview separately, Nicko said TaniHub is a startup company that at the time of the investment was not in a mature and profitable business condition.

Nicko referred to the provisions of the Financial Services Authority Regulation Number 35/2015 concerning the Implementation of the Ventura Capital Company Business which regulates the characteristics of venture capital investment in the business partner company.

In it, investments are made in start-up companies that have not yet produced profits and are not bankable.

"If, for example, we invest in a company that is already profitable, then it is not called venture capital," said Nicko.

According to Nicko, making the company's losses as the basis for questioning investment decisions is not appropriate.

Because the investment process and the company's losses are two separate things.

TaniHub as a corporation has its own context of problems, while he is charged in his capacity as an individual who has a different responsibility.

Nicko's investment decisions were then charged as a personal error without looking at the entire decision-making process.

In fact, the trial at the first level stated that there was no mens rea or evil intent.

Although the First Instance Court admitted that there was no mens rea, Nicko was still sentenced to 3 years in prison.

"If there is no evil intention, I should have been released, not even punished," said Nicko.