He Thought It Was Just Paperwork. Now This Plant Manager Is Facing Prison Time ⚠️

❓ Why Does This Case Matter?

Coca-Cola often promotes itself as a global supporter of sustainability.

In Indonesia, however, its local partner failed to renew basic groundwater permits. Regulators had raised concerns since late 2010 or early 2011. The issue remained unresolved for years until it eventually became a criminal case in 2014. It is still unclear whether the delays were caused by bureaucracy, miscommunication, or the company’s failure to follow up.

The use of criminal charges for what the company described as a licensing delay also raises questions about proportionality.

Was this reasonable enforcement, or excessive action by regulators?

🛠️ How Did It All Start?

The Sumedang plant operated 13 groundwater wells, although only 8 were active. Indonesian rules required regular renewal of groundwater extraction permits (SIPA) supported by a hydro-geological study. The renewal deadlines fell between July 2010 and January 2013.

Trouble began in late 2010 or early 2011 when a joint inspection team from ESDM, BPLH, and the Geological Agency visited the plant. Several wells showed hot water up to 40°C, murky discharge, and arsenic contamination. ⚗️

On 31 January 2011, then-manager Chandra Pardede promised repairs: Well 3 had a broken screen, Well 9 had yellow water and low pressure, and Well 11 was leaking and filled with sediment. None of these repairs were completed.

By June 2011, the Investment and Licensing Service Agency (BPMPP) refused to process CCBI’s renewal applications due to incomplete documents, especially the missing hydro-geological study.

In July 2011, BPMPP summoned CCBI for a presentation. Company representatives openly admitted that they had not prepared the required study. This admission halted progress and intensified regulatory concerns.

In January 2012, a consultant submitted a report, but it was for a new exploratory well and lacked essential data such as rainfall and water table measurements. It was rejected.

On 30 December 2013, BPMPP issued a formal warning ordering CCBI to shut down damaged wells and submit a revised water balance report. By that time, Ilman Sabri had taken over as plant manager in May 2013. He was not responsible for earlier lapses, but he became accountable for how the company responded to this warning. ⚠️

In early 2014, the Ministry of Health tested water from the plant and its surrounding areas. pH, BOD, COD, and TSS levels far exceeded legal limits, indicating serious contamination in both factory discharge and nearby rivers. 🌊

Despite all this, by February 2014 the plant continued extracting groundwater from unlicensed wells.

⚖️ What Did the Courts Conclude?

The prosecution argued that Ilman knowingly extracted groundwater without valid permits, violating Article 94 of the 2004 Water Law. Their case focused on expired licenses and continued environmental non-compliance.

Ilman’s defence argued that he had only taken the role in May 2013 and that the delays were bureaucratic rather than criminal. His team had attempted to complete the documentation, and the consultant’s report was in process.

The case changed dramatically on 18 February 2015 when the Constitutional Court revoked the 2004 Water Law for reasons unrelated to this case. This law had been the only legal basis for Ilman’s indictment.

The District Court eventually dismissed the case. Prosecutors appealed, suggesting they could use the older 1974 irrigation law, but the Supreme Court ruled that they would need to restart the case entirely.

This effectively ended the proceedings.

Ilman walked free because the law that criminalised his actions no longer existed. 🎉

📌 Key Takeaways

1. Paperwork can become a legal trap

The CCBI case shows how a permit renewal process can turn into a serious legal risk. It remains uncertain who caused the three-year delay. It could have been unresponsive CCBI staff, slow bureaucracy, or shifting technical requirements. All of these are common in Indonesia. In regulated sectors, incomplete paperwork can become a liability. 📄

2. Police involvement can escalate quickly

Many Indonesian sectoral laws include criminal penalties. This gives the police authority to intervene in licensing, environmental compliance, data protection, and even ordinary trading matters. Once the police become involved, things can escalate rapidly. Even short detention can be traumatic, and the public stigma can be damaging to a career. 🚨

3. Criminal liability does not depend on job title

Indonesian criminal law does not distinguish between directors and mid-level managers. Ilman Sabri was a manufacturing manager but still ended up in court facing prison. CCBI supported him with legal counsel and experienced lawyers, but not all companies will do the same. Anyone involved in regulatory operations should always protect themselves. 📌

Source: 

• Decision of Supreme Court No. 1937/K/Pid.Sus/2016