Legal Notice No. 015/SOMASI/RW/VIII/2026: Astari Marthaningtyas (English Edition)

This post summarises Somasi No. 015/SOMASI/RW/VIII/2026, a formal legal notice I sent on 28 August 2026 to Ms. Astari Marthaningtyas, holder of the X account @__Astari, over posts and replies I believe attacked my reputation. It is a legal notice, not a police report or court filing. She has not responded in this post, and I do not assert that she is guilty of any offence.

What the notice complains about

Four items, all from the @__Astari account as I documented them on 28 August 2026:

1. 24 September 2023. A post quoting and screenshotting one of mine, with the comment that I "got put on a disciplinary hearing over his attitude and is even proud of it." I recorded about 24 replies, 107 reposts, 305 likes and 171,300 views. In my reading it attributes arrogance and a lack of self-awareness to me before a very large audience.
2. 14 May 2026. A reply to a thread by another account (@KawalRahmatwi) that accused me of "extortion" and of sending "bogus" legal notices: "Admin, I'm a victim too, can we DM?" (about 577 views). In my reading, calling herself "a victim too" on a thread whose core accusation is extortion adopts and passes on that accusation.
3. 13 May 2026. A reply to a post promising to "expose" me: "Can I give facts? But can't DM" (about 2,000 views).
4. 10 May 2026. A reply explaining that the "leaderboard" in a related thread "means the list of accounts he has sent legal notices to" (about 189 views). In my reading, this helps build a framing of my legal notices as harassment.

I treat items 2–4 as part of one campaign between 10 and 14 May 2026, and item 1 as a separate, earlier act.

Why I linked the account to her name and employer

The account uses the nickname "Astari," and a public LinkedIn profile under the name Astari Marthaningtyas lists a Brand Innovation role at Unilever (including "Foods THCL Innovation and Design Lead"), based in Bangkok, and Universitas Padjadjaran as her alma mater. I relied on that public profile, which she appears to have made public herself, to decide where to send copies. I have no independent confirmation beyond it.

Copies went to PT Unilever Indonesia Tbk., Unilever Thailand, and the Universitas Padjadjaran alumni association (IKA Unpad).

Legal basis I relied on

I wrote the letter myself, without a lawyer. For Indonesia, I cited Art. 433 (written defamation) and Art. 434 (slander) of the new Criminal Code with the Art. 441(1) aggravation for information technology, the 2024 ITE Law as a normative reference, and Civil Code Arts. 1365, 1366, 1367(3), 1372 and 1373. For jurisdiction over a person in Thailand, I cited Arts. 4(c) and 8 KUHP, the Indonesia–Thailand extradition treaty, and ASEAN mutual legal assistance. I also cited Thai law: Criminal Code Sections 326 and 328 (defamation, including by publication) and Civil and Commercial Code Sections 420, 423 and 425. Sections 329–330 provide good-faith exceptions; I argued that spreading a serious accusation without proof does not qualify. Whether a Thai court would agree is not something I can say.

What I demanded

By Monday, 31 August 2026, 17:00 WIB, I asked her to:

1. Remove the four posts and replies;
2. Publish a public apology, pinned on @__Astari for at least 30 days;
3. Publish a clarification that she never received a legal notice, monetary demand or threat from me, so that describing herself as a "victim" of an extortion offence was untrue;
4. Stop further statements that could harm my name;
5. Pay at least IDR 533,333,334 in non-pecuniary compensation, computed as twice the maximum fine for slander by information-technology means under Art. 434 jo. Art. 441(1) (2 × IDR 266,666,666.67), with the final assessment left to a judge under Art. 1372 of the Civil Code;
6. Confirm completion in writing by email.

I offered an amicable settlement, including by video call because she is in Thailand. If she did not comply, I stated I would file two criminal complaints in Indonesia, a civil suit (possibly joining her employer under Art. 1367(3)), proceedings in Thailand, mutual legal assistance or extradition requests, deliver copies to Unilever and the alumni association, and publish the notice with its evidence.

Limits of this record

• This is my account and my legal reading; no court or authority has made a finding.
• I identified the account holder through a public professional profile and have no independent confirmation.
• The compensation figure is a demand, not an assessed loss.
• I am not a lawyer, and this post is not legal advice.

Right of reply and correction

Ms. Astari Marthaningtyas is invited to respond, correct, or add context. A substantive reply may be published alongside this article, edited only for privacy, safety and relevance. If reliable evidence shows any statement here is wrong, I will correct it and note the change.

See also the shorter earlier summary, Rahmat Wibowo vs. Astari Marthaningtyas, and the bilingual English and Thai edition of this letter: Legal Notice No. 015 (English + ภาษาไทย).

#Somasi #Defamation #ITELaw #LegalNotice #DigitalConduct

---

Rahmat Wibowo, Founder & CEO, InfraLoka — infraloka.co.id