Don Ritto’s Lawyer Claims 74 Kg of Gold Found at Rumah Sentul Belongs to Yayasan Dakwah

Don Ritto’s Lawyer Claims 74 Kg Gold Found at Sentul House Belongs to Islamic Education Foundation

The lawyer representing Indonesian businessman Don Ritto has claimed that 74 kilograms of gold and a large amount of foreign currency discovered by investigators at a house in Sentul, Bogor Regency, were assets connected to a foundation working in Islamic preaching and education.

Don Ritto’s attorney, Handika Honggowongso, said the valuables were not owned by former Deputy Attorney General for Special Crimes, or Jampidsus, Febrie Adriansyah. Instead, the lawyer maintained that the assets were associated with Don Ritto and the activities of a charitable foundation.

However, the ownership, source and intended use of the seized assets have not yet been conclusively established in court. The lawyer’s statements represent the defence’s position, while investigators are continuing to examine the origin of the gold and money.

Lawyer Connects Gold to Islamic Foundation

According to Handika, the foundation is involved in Islamic missionary work and education. He said it was supporting approximately 700 students from eastern Indonesia, particularly Papua and Maluku, who were studying at an Islamic boarding school in Banten.

The lawyer added that the organisation had wider plans to establish Islamic boarding schools, mosques and supporting educational facilities in Papua, Maluku and East Nusa Tenggara.

Handika said the house in Sentul had been used as a supporting operational office for the foundation. According to him, Don Ritto sought permission to use the property for the organisation’s operations around 2023.

The lawyer argued that this operational arrangement explained why assets allegedly connected to Don Ritto and the foundation were stored at the property. Publicly available reports, however, have not yet provided independent documentary proof confirming the foundation’s ownership of the gold and foreign currency.

74 Kg Gold and Foreign Currency Found

The case attracted widespread attention after investigators searched the house in the Sentul area and discovered a safe containing gold bars and large quantities of foreign currency.

Reports concerning the search referred to approximately 74 kilograms of gold, millions of United States dollars and millions of Singapore dollars. Some reports gave more precise figures of approximately US$4.76 million and SGD14.08 million, along with Indonesian currency.

Public statements by lawyers later referred to the figures in rounded terms, including approximately US$4 million and SGD12 million. The exact amount accepted as official evidence will ultimately depend on the investigators’ inventory, verification and evidentiary records.

The discovery immediately raised questions about who owned the assets, how they had been obtained and why such a substantial amount of wealth was being stored in gold and foreign currencies inside a private property.

Investigators have reportedly involved relevant institutions to examine the gold’s authenticity, weight and purity. The financial trail connected to the foreign currency is also expected to form an important part of the continuing investigation.

Origin of Assets Yet to Be Publicly Explained

Although Handika claimed the valuables were connected to the foundation’s work, he declined to immediately identify the individuals or organisations that had contributed the assets.

The lawyer said the defence would explain why the funds were stored in the form of gold, Singapore dollars and US dollars after the alleged contributing parties had been questioned by investigators.

He maintained that the explanation would be supported by valid and relevant evidence. However, he said the legal team did not want to reveal the details before the investigation had examined the donors or contributing parties.

This means that the central question concerning the original source of the wealth remains unanswered publicly.

Investigators are expected to examine financial documents, donor records, banking transactions, gold-purchase receipts, tax information and the foundation’s official accounts to determine whether the explanation is supported by evidence.

A claim that assets belong to a charitable organisation does not, by itself, establish legal ownership. Investigators must verify whether the assets were properly recorded in the foundation’s financial statements and whether their acquisition complied with Indonesian laws.

Don Ritto’s Side Denies Assets Belonged to Febrie

Handika also rejected suggestions that the seized gold and money belonged to Febrie Adriansyah, the former Jampidsus official whose name has been linked to the wider investigation.

According to Don Ritto’s legal team, the property was being used by Don Ritto for the foundation’s operational activities. Handika’s position is that the valuables were under Don Ritto’s responsibility and were connected to the foundation rather than Febrie.

Several Indonesian reports have described the Sentul property as being associated with Febrie. Nevertheless, the lawyers representing Don Ritto and Febrie have argued that the property’s actual physical use and management had been transferred to Don Ritto.

The distinction between legal ownership of the property and physical control of the premises may become an important issue in the investigation. Even when a house is legally registered in one person’s name, investigators must determine who occupied it, who controlled access to the safe and who placed the assets inside it.

Hotman Paris Says Febrie Did Not Control Safe

Prominent lawyer Hotman Paris Hutapea, who represents Febrie Adriansyah, also claimed that the safe and its contents were not under Febrie’s control.

Hotman said the Sentul property had been physically used by Don Ritto and that the operational management of the premises, including household arrangements, was no longer handled by Febrie.

According to Hotman, Don Ritto was allowed to use and renovate the property. He argued that Febrie had not exercised physical control over the house since it began being used by Don Ritto.

The defence position is therefore that the discovery of assets inside the property should not automatically be interpreted as proof that Febrie owned or controlled them.

However, investigators may still examine ownership documents, access records, communications, witness statements and financial connections involving all relevant parties before reaching a conclusion.

Don Ritto Transferred to Attorney General’s Office

The Metropolitan Jakarta Police reportedly transferred Don Ritto and related evidence to the Indonesian Attorney General’s Office on July 17, 2026.

The transferred evidence reportedly included the seized gold, cash and other electronic and non-electronic materials connected to the investigation.

The transfer followed an earlier decision by the National Police’s anti-corruption body, known as Kortastipidkor, to hand over the handling of several alleged corruption cases to the Attorney General’s Office.

Authorities said the transfer was intended to improve coordination, accelerate the investigation and avoid unnecessary overlap between different law-enforcement institutions.

Following the transfer, the Attorney General’s Office became responsible for further examination of Don Ritto and the evidence associated with the relevant cases.

Cases Connected to ASABRI, PLN and Krakatau Steel

The wider investigation reportedly concerns alleged wrongdoing linked to several major state-related cases, including PT ASABRI, a coal-fired power project involving PLN and PT Krakatau Steel.

The Attorney General’s Office clarified that the legal status and stage of each case were not necessarily identical.

According to a statement cited by Indonesian media, Febrie Adriansyah was identified as a suspect in an alleged corruption and money-laundering investigation connected to PT ASABRI for the 2020–2024 period.

Don Ritto, meanwhile, was described as a suspect in an alleged money-laundering case connected to the ASABRI investigation.

Authorities said the investigations relating to Krakatau Steel and the PLN matter remained at a more general investigative stage, meaning that the precise allegations, roles and possible suspects in those matters were still being developed.

Febrie Adriansyah Questioned

Febrie was reportedly questioned for approximately 10 to 11 hours by investigators at the Attorney General’s Office on July 17.

Hotman Paris said investigators asked his client around 18 questions, primarily concerning the alleged ASABRI corruption and money-laundering case.

Febrie’s legal team denied the allegations and rejected claims concerning an alleged transfer of more than Rp50 billion from businessman Tan Kian.

Hotman also said Febrie was not detained after questioning. The decision not to detain a suspect does not end an investigation or determine whether the person is guilty or innocent. Detention is a procedural measure that is separate from the final determination of criminal responsibility.

What Is the Alleged ASABRI Connection?

PT ASABRI is an Indonesian state-owned insurance and pension company serving members of the military, police and certain government institutions.

The company has previously been at the centre of a major corruption case involving allegations of improper investment management and substantial financial losses.

The present investigation described in recent reports concerns alleged corruption and money laundering during a later period and involves questions about the handling of assets, financial transactions and the possible movement of funds.

Investigators will need to establish whether the gold and foreign currency seized in Sentul were connected to criminal proceeds, legitimate business activities, charitable contributions or another lawful source.

The defence maintains that the assets were associated with the foundation. The prosecution and investigators have not yet publicly accepted that explanation as established fact.

Foundation’s Financial Records Could Become Important

The foundation’s official records may play a central role in verifying the lawyer’s explanation.

Investigators may examine whether the organisation is legally registered, whether it submitted required reports and whether the gold and foreign currency appeared in its financial statements.

They may also investigate the identities of donors, the dates on which donations were made and whether the amounts correspond with the assets recovered from the Sentul property.

The construction of boarding schools and mosques can require significant funds. Nevertheless, investigators will need evidence showing that the assets had genuinely been earmarked for such projects.

Documents such as donation agreements, board resolutions, project plans, construction budgets, banking statements and receipts for the purchase of gold could help determine whether the defence’s account is credible.

The authorities may also investigate why the funds were kept physically in a safe instead of being deposited in a bank account registered in the foundation’s name.

Lawyer Promises Greater Public Disclosure

Hotman Paris said that details concerning the 74 kilograms of gold and millions in foreign currency would eventually be disclosed to the public.

The lawyers have indicated that they intend to present evidence explaining the ownership and purpose of the assets.

Such disclosure may include records showing who contributed the funds and how they were intended to support religious or educational projects.

However, until the documents are examined by investigators and tested through the legal process, the claim that the assets belonged to the foundation remains an allegation made by the defence.

The public explanation will also need to address the differences between describing the assets as Don Ritto’s property and describing them as property belonging to a foundation. Legally, personal assets and the assets of a registered foundation are not necessarily the same.

Presumption of Innocence Remains Important

The investigation is still developing, and all individuals named in the case are entitled to the presumption of innocence.

Being identified as a suspect does not amount to a final conviction. Criminal responsibility can only be conclusively determined through the appropriate judicial process.

Similarly, the seizure of gold or cash does not automatically prove that the assets were obtained through corruption or money laundering.

Investigators must establish the origin of the assets, their ownership, their relationship to the alleged offences and the knowledge or involvement of the individuals concerned.

The defence must also be given an opportunity to submit documents, witnesses and other evidence supporting its explanation.

Key Questions Investigators Must Answer

The Sentul discovery has created several important questions.

Who legally owned the 74 kilograms of gold?

Who purchased the gold and when was it purchased?

Who supplied the US and Singapore dollars?

Were the assets officially recorded in the foundation’s accounts?

Why were the funds stored in gold and foreign currency?

Who controlled the safe and had access to it?

Was the Sentul house genuinely being used as a foundation office?

Are the assets connected to ASABRI or any other alleged corruption case?

Answers to these questions will determine whether the foundation explanation is accepted or rejected.

Conclusion

The discovery of 74 kilograms of gold and millions in foreign currency at a house in Sentul has become a major development in Indonesia’s continuing corruption and money-laundering investigations.

Don Ritto’s lawyer claims that the assets were connected to a foundation engaged in Islamic preaching and education, which supports around 700 students from Papua and Maluku and plans to build religious and educational facilities in eastern Indonesia.

The legal teams representing Don Ritto and Febrie Adriansyah have both denied that the assets belonged to Febrie. They argue that Don Ritto controlled and used the Sentul property for foundation-related operations.

However, the origin, ownership and legal status of the assets have not yet been conclusively proven.

Investigators must now examine the financial trail, donor information, foundation records and evidence concerning the control of the property and safe.

Until the investigation and judicial process are completed, claims by the lawyers should be understood as defence statements rather than final legal findings.