Kait-Sistegra and Deyan Prashna: A Complaint Record on Unaccounted Expense Funds in a Startup Partnership

An English record of a complaint I prepared about a business-development partnership at Infraloka. The parties are named only in the title and the page metadata so the record can be found and answered. Identity numbers, addresses, bank details, contact details, education and employment history and all medical records have been removed on purpose. Everything below is my own account and my own legal assessment. It is not a finding by any authority, every legal classification is an allegation that only an investigator or a court can decide, and a right of reply is open.

Why I am publishing this in this form

I believe disputes should be handled with documents, not rumors. I also believe the other person is still a human being who deserves dignity, so the body of this post uses roles, not personal details. The goal is to describe what happened, show how the complaint is reasoned, and give other founders a pattern to recognize early.

In this post, I am the Complainant and Deyan Prashna (Kait-Sistegra) is the Respondent.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is addressed to the national police criminal investigation agency and the relevant regional and local police units. It concerns four suspected matters:

1. Fraud.
2. Embezzlement within an employment or working relationship.
3. Insult carried out through an information technology channel.
4. Discrimination against a person with a disability.

I use the word "suspected" deliberately. I am describing facts and asking professionals to assess them.

Chronology

1. The invitation. The Respondent approached me to cooperate on developing Infraloka's business. They said they had business experience and many connections that could bring in projects and prospective clients, and they offered several project opportunities.

2. The title. Because I trusted those representations, I agreed to give the Respondent a position at C-level. The Respondent then listed a chief-level title for Infraloka on their public professional profile. The agreed compensation was 30% of the net revenue of any project they successfully brought in.

3. Requests for travel money. From the start of the cooperation, the Respondent repeatedly asked for money for travel and for meetings with prospective clients. On 11 August 2026 we agreed that expenses would be reimbursed per trip, with the simple mechanism of "just collect the receipts".

4. The transfers. Between 10 August 2026 and 5 September 2026, I handed over at least IDR 1,844,000 (excluding transfer fees) in at least eleven transfers:

No.	Date	Amount (IDR)	Recipient
1	10 Aug 2026	149,000	A company account, on the Respondent's instruction
2	12 Aug 2026	200,000	The Respondent
3	15 Aug 2026	140,000	The Respondent
4	19 Aug 2026	375,000	The Respondent
5	26 Aug 2026	140,000	The Respondent
6	27 Aug 2026	140,000	The Respondent
7	28 Aug 2026	140,000	The Respondent
8	30 Aug 2026	140,000	The Respondent
9	2 Sep 2026	140,000	The Respondent
10	3 Sep 2026	140,000	The Respondent
11	5 Sep 2026	140,000	The Respondent

5. No receipts. For none of these funds did I receive a receipt, proof of an actual expense, or any accounting, even though I asked repeatedly.

6. No reporting. I also never received activity reports or daily reports, proof of meetings, progress on leads, follow-ups with prospective clients, or any agreement document produced from a meeting. I cannot point to a single client or project that came from this work.

7. Work flowing back to me. Some business-development tasks, such as making presentations, providing design assets and preparing cost estimates, were handed back to me. The Respondent made no financial contribution, while reimbursement and operational support requests continued. There were also requests for support to take a professional finance certification and for an additional position as Customer Relationship Manager.

8. The messages. When I gave feedback and asked for accountability, the Respondent answered through WhatsApp with statements attacking my honor and reputation. In paraphrase: they called me arrogant and envious, said my knowledge was shallow, and said my heart was covered by jealousy.

9. The disability dimension. After I explained that this treatment was affecting my health, the Respondent wrote, in substance, that it was no surprise I was being treated that way. They wrote this while knowing about my disability. I read it as harassment and as a justification of poor treatment because of that disability.

10. The impact. The material loss is the funds above plus the value of the work that was shifted to me. The immaterial loss is psychological pressure and a worsening of my well-being. I am not publishing any medical record or detail about it.

The legal reasoning, in plain language

These are my allegations, written without article text so the post stays readable. The statutes are Indonesia's 2023 Criminal Code (Law No. 1 of 2023) and the Persons with Disabilities Law (Law No. 8 of 2016).

• Fraud (Criminal Code, Art. 492). The elements I rely on: an intent to benefit oneself unlawfully; a false position or a series of untruthful statements (claimed experience and client connections that produced no verifiable result, and a chief-level title displayed in public); and inducing another person to hand over property (my agreement to the position and the eleven transfers).
• Embezzlement in an employment relationship (Arts. 486 and 488). The funds came to the Respondent voluntarily, for travel and meetings. My allegation is that they were then kept and used outside that purpose, with no receipts, no accounting and no evidence of any meeting that was funded.
• Insult through information technology (Arts. 436 and 441(1)). Insulting messages sent directly to me through a messaging application. Using an information technology channel can increase the possible penalty by one third.
• Discrimination against a person with a disability (Law No. 8 of 2016, Arts. 143 and 145, with Art. 1 point 3). Harassment on the basis of disability that affects the exercise of rights, here in a working and entrepreneurial context.

Evidence I hold, described without identifying detail

All of it is electronic evidence that I am ready to hand over to investigators:

1. Screenshots of the Respondent's public professional profile showing the chief-level title for Infraloka and a second, concurrent business-development role elsewhere.
2. WhatsApp conversations about the request for certification support and the 30% scheme.
3. The 11 August 2026 conversation agreeing on per-trip reimbursement by collecting receipts.
4. Bank transfer histories and transfer confirmations for the eleven transfers.
5. The conversation in which I was told to transfer to a company account and to share the proof so it could be forwarded.
6. The WhatsApp messages with the insulting statements and the statement described in point 9 above.
7. The formal letter of demand I sent beforehand, with proof of delivery.

I have deliberately left out the account numbers, transaction identifiers and any medical documents.

What I asked for

I asked the authorities to:

1. Receive and register the complaint.
2. Investigate the four suspected matters.
3. Summon and question the Respondent and related parties, including the company that received one of the transfers.
4. Request bank information for the relevant accounts for 10 August to 5 September 2026.
5. Provide the protection that the law gives to a person with a disability.
6. Raise the matter to the investigation stage if there is sufficient preliminary evidence.

I submitted it personally, without a lawyer, and I remain willing to give further statements.

Right of reply

If Deyan Prashna wishes to respond, correct a fact, or provide receipts and reports that I have not seen, write to admin@infraloka.co.id. A good-faith reply with documents will be added to this page, and I will correct anything shown to be wrong.

What I hope readers take from this

• Agree on expense rules before the first transfer: who pays, against what proof, and by when.
• Make titles follow results, not the other way around.
• Ask for short, regular reports, and treat a request for them as respect, not as distrust.
• Keep every instruction to pay in writing, including who the real recipient is.
• When feedback becomes personal, stop and move the conversation to documents.

My own lesson is that I also made this easier by giving a senior title before any result existed. I take responsibility for that part. I wish the Respondent well, and I would still be glad to see this settled through proper, fair processes and, where possible, in peace.

#KaitSistegra#DeyanPrashna#StartupLessons#Accountability#BusinessEthics#ExpenseReporting#Founders#Indonesia#LegalLiteracy#Infraloka