Ruben Onsu and Aditya Gumay Report to Police Over IDR 15 Billion Losses in Nia Film Project

The Indonesian entertainment industry has once again been shaken by a major legal dispute involving prominent public figures. Well-known television personality and entrepreneur Ruben Onsu, alongside veteran director and producer Aditya Gumay, has officially taken legal action regarding a severe financial and copyright dispute stemming from the production of the feature film titled NIA. Representing PT Smaradana Pro, the creators and stakeholders have lodged a formal complaint with the Jakarta Metropolitan Police (Polda Metro Jaya), citing staggering financial losses amounting to IDR 15 billion. The case encompasses serious allegations, including fraud, embezzlement, copyright infringement, and violations of national film regulations.

Chronology of the Dispute and the Breakdown of Communication

The conflict centers around the management and distribution rights of the feature film NIA, a cinematic project jointly owned by PT Smaradana Pro and 786 Production, represented by an individual named Niki. Within the production hierarchy, Ruben Onsu holds the prestigious and substantial role of Executive Producer, while Aditya Gumay serves as the Director of PT Smaradana Pro.

The friction began when PT Smaradana Pro repeatedly requested a physical or digital copy of the distribution contract signed with the global Over-The-Top (OTT) streaming giant, Netflix. Because PT Smaradana Pro holds a co-ownership stake in the intellectual property and production assets, transparency regarding the distribution agreement is legally and commercially mandatory. However, despite multiple requests, reminders, and formal channels of communication, Niki allegedly withheld the contract details.

The deadlock severely hampered subsequent business opportunities. According to Aditya Gumay, several international buyers from the Asia-Pacific region and other global markets expressed genuine interest in acquiring the screening and distribution rights for NIA. Unfortunately, these prospective international deals could not be finalized or even thoroughly negotiated because the foundational terms, exclusivity clauses, and financial disclosures of the existing Netflix agreement remained concealed from the co-owner.

Legal Escalation and Official Police Investigation

Recognizing that informal discussions and good-faith negotiations had broken down, the management of PT Smaradana Pro escalated the matter. Legal counsel was appointed to issue formal warnings and legal notices, known locally as somasi. When these legal notices failed to compel the opposing party to disclose the documents or reach an amicable settlement, the production house proceeded with criminal charges.

On May 21, 2026, Aditya Gumay formally registered a police report at the Jakarta Metropolitan Police. The official report was documented under the registration number STTLP/3648/V/2026/SPKT/POLDA METRO JAYA. Law enforcement authorities have since initiated a comprehensive investigation into the matter. According to updates from the legal team, investigators have already entered the investigative phase, summoning relevant witnesses and calling the reported party, Niki, for questioning on at least two separate occasions.

The legal scope of the complaint is broad, reflecting the complexity of modern film financing and intellectual property management in Indonesia. The charges formally brought forward include criminal embezzlement, fraud, breaches of the Indonesian Cinema Law, and violations of national Copyright Laws. The total quantified financial loss claimed by PT Smaradana Pro in the official dossier stands firmly at IDR 15 billion.

Perspectives from the Involved Parties and Trade Secret Defense

During press briefings held in the Manggarai area of South Jakarta, Aditya Gumay elaborated extensively on the frustration experienced by the production house and Ruben Onsu. He emphasized that transparency is non-negotiable in co-production ventures, especially when international commercial expansion is at stake.

"Smaradana Pro includes Ruben, where Ruben’s name is clearly credited on screen as the Executive Producer," Aditya Gumay stated during a media briefing. He further underscored the absurdity of withholding documents from an equal stakeholder, noting, "We cannot proceed because up to today, the contract held by Mr. Niki—as my fellow producer who shares equal rights—is simply not given to us."

Conversely, the defense or reasoning presented by the opposing camp centers on confidentiality. According to Aditya, Niki argued that the contract secured from the international OTT platform constitutes a strict "trade secret" (rahasia dapur). Under this rationale, the specific financial figures, revenue splits, and administrative clauses of the Netflix deal were deemed confidential and unsuitable for full disclosure to the co-producing entity. However, legal experts point out that invoking trade secrecy between recognized co-owners and co-producers of the exact same intellectual property rarely holds legal weight when statutory reporting and profit-sharing rights are legally mandated.

Broader Industry Implications and Commercial Impact

This high-profile dispute sheds light on the complex contractual landscapes and governance challenges plaguing Indonesia’s rapidly modernizing film industry. As local production houses increasingly collaborate with global streaming giants like Netflix, Disney+, and Amazon Prime Video, the financial stakes have multiplied exponentially.

The involvement of a major celebrity investor like Ruben Onsu—who not only lends his influential name and brand power as an Executive Producer but also commits substantial capital—highlights the vulnerability of high-net-worth individuals in creative joint ventures. When transparency falters, the fallout can trigger severe financial distress and erode trust within the entertainment ecosystem.

Furthermore, the case emphasizes the critical importance of ironclad co-production agreements prior to principal photography and international distribution. Industry analysts suggest that ambiguous clauses regarding digital rights management, territorial exclusivity, and revenue reporting are ticking time bombs for many production houses entering the global streaming market without airtight legal counsel.

As the police investigation progresses at Polda Metro Jaya, stakeholders across the Indonesian cinematic landscape are closely monitoring the proceedings. The outcome of this legal battle is expected to set a significant precedent regarding corporate governance, transparency in streaming distribution, and the legal rights of executive producers and co-production companies in Indonesia.