Year: 2026

Our Legal Team Represents a Chinese National in an Indonesian Wildlife Protection Case Entering the Prosecution Stage

Posted by Admin on

Case Update

According to publicly available information released by Gakkum Kehutanan, a criminal case involving a Chinese national in relation to alleged violations of Indonesian wildlife protection laws has completed the investigation stage and has been transferred to the Public Prosecutor’s Office for prosecution.

Based on the official information disclosed, the matter originated from an inspection conducted by law enforcement authorities at Soekarno–Hatta International Airport. Following the completion of the investigative process, the case has now proceeded to the prosecution stage.

Our legal team has been formally retained by the client and the client’s family and is currently providing legal representation throughout the ongoing criminal proceedings.

Ongoing Legal Representation

The matter is presently under review by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Our legal team continues to assist the client through legal analysis, review of evidence, submission of legal opinions, and preparation for potential court proceedings.

Under Indonesian criminal procedural law, the transfer of a case to the prosecution stage does not constitute a determination of guilt. The assessment of facts, admissibility of evidence, and criminal liability remains subject to adjudication by the competent court through due judicial process.

We remain committed to safeguarding our client’s legal rights and ensuring full compliance with the principles of due process and fair trial.

Cross-Border Criminal Matters

As international investment, trade, tourism, and mobility continue to expand in Indonesia, legal issues involving foreign nationals have become increasingly complex.

Cases involving foreign nationals often require consideration of:

  • Cross-border legal and regulatory issues;
  • Differences between legal systems and procedural frameworks;
  • Coordination with family members, consular authorities, and other stakeholders;
  • Strategic defense planning at investigation, prosecution, and trial stages;
  • Effective communication across multiple languages and jurisdictions.

Our Practice Areas

Our firm regularly advises and represents foreign individuals and businesses in Indonesia, including matters involving:

  • Criminal defense and litigation;
  • Representation of foreign nationals in criminal proceedings;
  • Regulatory compliance and risk management;
  • Internal investigations and crisis response;
  • International dispute resolution;
  • Consular coordination and family assistance.

Source of Information

The procedural developments described in this article are based on information publicly released by:

Official Press Release of Gakkum Kehutanan

Disclaimer

This article is intended solely to provide information regarding procedural developments in the case and does not constitute any determination regarding the facts, merits, or legal liability of any party.

Any findings of fact or criminal responsibility remain exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent court and are subject to a final and binding judgment.

Ignorance That Must Be Proven: A Defense in Psychotropic Cases

Posted by Irfan Disnizar on

There is one statement that frequently arises when a person is apprehended while carrying an item containing psychotropic substances:

“I did not know.”

That statement may be true.

It may also be untrue.

The problem is that, in psychotropic cases, the law is not satisfied merely by hearing the words “I did not know.” The law will inquire further:

If you did not know, why was the item in your possession?

Who gave it to you?

When did you receive it?

What were you told about its contents?

Did you open the suitcase or package?

Were you paid?

Who arranged the trip?

Who was supposed to receive the item at the destination?

Questions such as these often surprise ordinary people. From the perspective of a potential victim, he or she may feel that they were merely helping someone transport an item. From the perspective of law enforcement authorities, however, the prohibited substance was found in that person’s possession or under that person’s control during the journey.

This is where the real issue lies.

In psychotropic cases, ignorance is not something that can merely be stated.

Ignorance must be explained and proven.

I. A Common Story: Carrying a Package for Someone Else, Then Being Arrested

Imagine a person traveling from Milan to Hong Kong, with a transit stop in Indonesia.

Before departure, an acquaintance asks the traveler to carry a suitcase. The traveler is told that it contains clothing, personal belongings, or items intended for family members.

The traveler believes the explanation.

The traveler does not open the suitcase.

The traveler does not believe that any crime is being committed.

The traveler simply thinks he or she is helping someone.

However, during transit in Indonesia, the suitcase is inspected. Law enforcement officers discover psychotropic substances inside. In an instant, what began as an ordinary journey becomes a serious criminal matter.

The traveler panics and says:

“I did not know.”

“The suitcase is not mine.”

“I was only carrying it for someone else.”

From a human perspective, such panic is understandable. In legal proceedings, however, those statements alone are not sufficient.

Law enforcement authorities are still required to investigate. The police must continue gathering facts. Prosecutors must assess the case file. Ultimately, the court will determine whether the claim of ignorance is reasonable, consistent, and supported by evidence.

Accordingly, the key question is no longer merely:

“Did the person carry the item?”

Rather, the questions become:

“Did the person know what the item contained?”

“Was the person aware that he or she was transporting psychotropic substances?”

“Was the person part of a criminal network?”

“Or was the person a victim who had been exploited by others?”

This distinction is critically important. Not every person found carrying prohibited substances is automatically a trafficker, dealer, or courier acting with full knowledge of what they were transporting.

II. Why Does “I Did Not Know” Not Automatically Exonerate Someone?

In criminal cases, particularly psychotropic cases, law enforcement authorities generally begin with the facts that can be objectively observed.

For example:

the prohibited substance is found inside a person’s suitcase;

the baggage tag is registered under that person’s name;

the person is engaged in international travel;

the substance is discovered when the person enters or transits through Indonesia;

and the true owner of the substance has not yet been identified.

Based on such preliminary facts, the individual may still be questioned, detained, or even designated as a suspect, despite claiming that he or she had no knowledge of the contents.

This does not mean that everyone is automatically presumed guilty. Rather, the explanation “I did not know” is also frequently used by individuals who knowingly transport prohibited substances. As a result, law enforcement authorities cannot simply stop their inquiry at the point of such a statement.

For a person who genuinely lacked knowledge, the challenge lies in presenting a credible explanation.

For example:

who provided the suitcase;

what relationship existed between the parties;

what information was given regarding the contents of the suitcase;

whether there are chat records or written communications;

who purchased the airline ticket;

whether any money was provided;

whether the person knew the suitcase combination or access code;

whether the suitcase had ever been opened;

and whether the person immediately identified the individual who entrusted the suitcase to him or her from the outset.

The clearer the answers to these questions, the stronger the defense position becomes.

Conversely, if the answers change over time, lack consistency, or are unsupported by evidence, the defense becomes significantly weaker.

III. Innocent People Often Say the Wrong Things When They Panic

One of the greatest challenges in cases of this nature is that innocent individuals often panic during the initial examination.

They are afraid.

They are confused.

They may not understand the language being used.

They may not be aware of their legal rights.

They may not understand the legal consequences of the answers they provide.

For example, an officer may ask:

“Is this your suitcase?”

The individual responds:

“Yes.”

What the person actually means is that the suitcase was being carried during the journey. It does not necessarily mean that the suitcase belongs to him or her. The suitcase may simply have been entrusted to that person by someone else.

Or an officer may ask:

“Do you know what is inside?”

The individual responds:

“I was told it contained clothing.”

If not properly explained, such an answer can create problems. It may appear as though the person had knowledge of the contents of the suitcase, when in reality he or she was merely repeating information provided by the individual who entrusted the suitcase.

For this reason, initial statements are extremely important in psychotropic cases.

A clearer and safer response may be:

“I was carrying the suitcase, but it does not belong to me. I received it from a person named X. I was only informed that it contained clothing or personal belongings. I was never informed, nor did I know, that the suitcase contained psychotropic substances.”

Such a statement is more complete. It does not deny the fact that the suitcase was being carried, while at the same time explaining that the suitcase belonged to another person and that the contents were unknown to the carrier.

In criminal proceedings, the truth must be communicated accurately.

Not for the purpose of creating a story, but to ensure that the facts are not misunderstood.

IV. Evidence That Should Be Collected Immediately

Many families assume that evidence in a case like this must always be complicated.

In reality, that is not necessarily the case.

Many important pieces of evidence are often already in the possession of the individual involved or his or her family.

For example:

WhatsApp, Telegram, WeChat, Line, SMS, email, or social media communications with the person who entrusted the item;

telephone call records;

airline tickets;

boarding passes;

baggage tags;

proof of ticket payment;

records of money transfers;

hotel booking confirmations;

photographs of the suitcase or the items before departure;

the name and telephone number of the person who provided the item;

the name and telephone number of the person intended to receive the item at the destination country;

messages indicating that the item contained clothing, medicine, supplements, gifts, documents, or personal belongings;

and statements from family members or friends who knew that the individual was merely carrying an item on behalf of someone else.

Evidence of this nature may appear simple.

However, in psychotropic cases, simple evidence can be extremely important.

For example, there may be a message stating:

“Please help bring this suitcase. It contains clothing.”

Such a message does not automatically result in acquittal.

However, it may help demonstrate that the individual was informed that the suitcase contained clothing rather than psychotropic substances.

Similarly, there may be evidence showing that the airline ticket was purchased by another person. This may indicate that the journey was arranged by someone else. Nevertheless, such evidence must be explained carefully.

Otherwise, it may be interpreted as payment for acting as a courier.

For that reason, evidence should not merely be collected.

Evidence must be organized, examined, and explained within a proper defense framework.

What must never be done is deleting messages, editing conversations, fabricating evidence, or inventing new facts.

A single falsehood can undermine many genuine facts that might otherwise assist the defense.

V. Families Should Not Panic, But They Must Act Quickly

When a family learns that one of its members has been arrested in connection with a psychotropic case, panic is often the first reaction.

That reaction is understandable.

However, after the initial panic, the family must act promptly and systematically.

The following steps should be taken:

preserve all communications between the individual and the person who entrusted the item;

record the names, telephone numbers, social media accounts, addresses, and other identifying information of relevant individuals;

retain airline tickets, hotel reservations, transfer records, and travel itineraries;

determine who paid for the airline ticket;

identify anyone who was aware of the trip;

prepare a simple chronology based on the available information;

and seek legal assistance immediately.

Families should also proceed with caution.

Do not make accusations on social media.

Do not contact individuals suspected of setting up or deceiving the person involved without proper legal guidance.

Do not trust individuals who claim that the matter can be resolved through unofficial means.

Psychotropic cases are serious criminal matters.

The safest course is a well-structured legal defense, not vague promises of informal solutions.

VI. A Defense Must Begin at the Earliest Stage, Not After the Case Reaches Trial

One of the most common mistakes is waiting until the case has progressed significantly through the police investigation stage, or even until the case is about to be transferred to the prosecution authorities, before seeking legal counsel.

In psychotropic cases, however, the most serious damage often occurs at the very beginning.

The individual may have already signed an examination report without fully understanding its contents.

The individual may have provided incomplete statements.

The individual may have failed to immediately identify the person who entrusted the item.

The individual may not have requested an interpreter despite not understanding the language used during questioning.

The family may have failed to secure digital evidence in time.

The person who entrusted the item may have disappeared.

Telephone numbers may no longer be active.

Social media accounts may have been deleted.

For these reasons, legal assistance from the earliest stage is critically important.

Legal representation is not intended to teach someone how to lie.

It is not intended to create a story.

It is not intended to avoid the law.

Legal representation is necessary to ensure that a person who is genuinely a victim can explain the events accurately, coherently, consistently, and without unintentionally harming his or her own legal position.

VII. The Defense Theory That Must Be Established

Legal Opinion and Compliance Analysis on Indonesian Companies Providing Guarantees for Overseas Projects of Foreign Affiliates

Posted by Admin on

In cross-border financing and project investment structures, it is common for lenders or investors to require multi-layered credit support. Among these, it has become increasingly common for an Indonesian company to provide a guarantee for a foreign affiliate in respect of an overseas project.

Unlike ordinary commercial guarantees, such arrangements involve multiple legal dimensions, including corporate authority, regulatory compliance, and enforceability. In practice, financial institutions typically require an Indonesian Legal Opinion to confirm the legality, validity, and enforceability of such guarantees.

Queen Law Firm has extensive experience in cross-border transactions of this nature and is able to advise on transaction structuring at an early stage, as well as issue practical and bankable legal opinions under Indonesian law. Set out below is an overview of the key legal considerations and opinion framework.

I. Transaction Structure and Legal Characterization

A typical structure includes:

  1. An offshore entity (usually a parent company or financing vehicle) acting as borrower;
  2. Financing proceeds used for overseas projects or regional investments;
  3. An Indonesian company acting as guarantor, providing a corporate guarantee and/or security over its assets.

The key legal characteristics of such structure are:

  1. The guarantee obligation is assumed by an Indonesian entity, while the financing and project are located offshore;
  2. The benefit to the Indonesian guarantor is often indirect;
  3. Lenders rely heavily on legal opinions to validate enforceability.

Accordingly, the critical issue is not merely the form of the guarantee, but whether it is legally sustainable and enforceable under Indonesian law.

II. Types of Guarantees under Indonesian Law

Indonesian law does not provide a unified regime for cross-border guarantees. Instead, different legal concepts apply depending on the structure.

(i) Personal Guarantee (Borgtocht)

Under Article 1820 of the Indonesian Civil Code (KUHPerdata), a guarantee is an accessory obligation with the following characteristics:

  1. It is dependent on the validity of the principal obligation;
  2. It may be supplementary in nature;
  3. Certain defenses may be contractually waived.

In cross-border financing, lenders typically require waivers of defenses to approximate primary liability.

(ii) Corporate Guarantee

A corporate guarantee is based on the principle of freedom of contract. Its enforceability primarily depends on the legality of the corporate act rather than its classification under civil law.

Key requirements include:

  1. The company has the capacity and authority to enter into the guarantee;
  2. The guarantee complies with the corporate benefit principle;
  3. Internal approvals have been duly obtained.

(iii) Security over Assets (In Rem Security)

Where assets are involved, the following may apply:

  1. Fiduciary security (fidusia) over movable assets;
  2. Mortgage (hak tanggungan) over immovable property;
  3. Pledge (gadai).

Such security interests generally require registration and provide priority rights upon enforcement.

III. Corporate Law Considerations: Corporate Benefit and Authority

(i) Corporate Benefit

Under Indonesian Company Law (Law No. 40 of 2007), directors must act in the best interest of the company.

In the context of guarantees for overseas projects, it is essential to establish:

  1. Whether the financing directly or indirectly benefits the Indonesian company;
  2. Whether the company derives value from group-level financing arrangements;
  3. Whether a guarantee fee or other consideration is provided;
  4. Whether there is operational dependency between the entities.

Failure to demonstrate corporate benefit may result in the guarantee being challenged as an ultra vires act.

(ii) Corporate Approvals

The following approvals are typically required:

  1. Board of Directors approval;
  2. Shareholders’ approval, where required (e.g., material transactions or as stipulated in the Articles of Association);
  3. Proper authorization of signatories.

The completeness of corporate approvals is a key factor in determining enforceability.

(iii) Directors’ Duties

Directors are subject to fiduciary duties, including duties of care and loyalty. Failure to properly assess risks or comply with procedures may expose directors to liability.

IV. Related Party Transaction Considerations

Where the beneficiary of the guarantee is an affiliated party (pihak afiliasi), additional scrutiny applies:

  1. Whether there is a conflict of interest;
  2. Whether the terms are commercially reasonable;
  3. Whether additional approvals or disclosures are required;
  4. Whether an independent fairness opinion is necessary.

These factors are often reviewed during financing due diligence and audits.

V. Foreign Exchange and Regulatory Compliance

(i) External Debt Reporting

Where the guarantee relates to offshore borrowing, the Indonesian company may be required to:

  1. Register the transaction with Bank Indonesia;
  2. Submit periodic reports.

(ii) Prudential Requirements

Certain transactions may be subject to:

  1. Hedging requirements;
  2. Liquidity ratios;
  3. Credit rating considerations.

Although a guarantee is contingent in nature, it may still impact regulatory assessment.

VI. Enforcement and Practical Considerations

(i) Governing Law and Enforcement

Guarantee documents are often governed by foreign law. However:

  1. Indonesian courts do not automatically recognize foreign court judgments;
  2. Enforcement in Indonesia generally requires local proceedings or reliance on arbitration awards.

(ii) Scope of Legal Opinion on Enforceability

In practice, an Indonesian legal opinion will:

  1. Confirm validity and binding nature under Indonesian law;
  2. Provide qualified statements on enforceability;
  3. Not give an unqualified confirmation on the direct enforcement of foreign judgments in Indonesia.

VII. Scope of Indonesian Legal Opinion

In issuing a legal opinion for such transactions, we typically review the following:

(i) Corporate Status

  1. The company is duly incorporated and validly existing;
  2. The Articles of Association permit the provision of guarantees;
  3. There are no prohibitions restricting such actions.

(ii) Corporate Authorization

  1. Required board and shareholder approvals have been obtained;
  2. Authorization documents are valid;
  3. Signatories are duly authorized.

(iii) Corporate Benefit Analysis

  1. The guarantee serves a legitimate corporate purpose;
  2. There is a reasonable commercial rationale;
  3. Legal risks are properly assessed.

(iv) Legal Validity (Legally Binding)

  1. The guarantee constitutes a valid and binding obligation;
  2. No grounds for invalidity or avoidance are present;
  3. No violation of mandatory law.

(v) Enforceability

  1. The guarantee is enforceable under Indonesian law;
  2. Potential enforcement limitations are identified;
  3. Enforcement pathways are analyzed.

VIII. Conclusion

Based on Indonesian law and subject to the fulfillment of corporate benefit, corporate approvals, and regulatory compliance:

  1. An Indonesian company may, in principle, provide a guarantee for an overseas project of a foreign affiliate;
  2. Upon proper authorization, such guarantee constitutes a valid and legally binding obligation;
  3. The actual enforceability will depend on the chosen enforcement mechanism and applicable procedures.

We recommend that a full legal due diligence be conducted prior to execution, and a formal legal opinion be issued based on the finalized transaction documents.

IX. Selected Project Experience

(i) Energy Project Financing

  1. Offshore financing supporting Indonesian energy projects;
  2. Corporate benefit established through fund flow and counter-guarantee structures;
  3. Successful completion of approvals and regulatory assessment;
  4. Financing closed with lender acceptance.

(ii) Manufacturing Group Financing Support

  1. Indonesian entity providing guarantee for group financing;
  2. Introduction of guarantee fee and related party analysis;
  3. Strengthened corporate approvals;
  4. Accepted by lenders and auditors.

(iii) Trade Finance Structure

  1. Short-term cross-border financing with Indonesian guarantee;
  2. Implementation of maximum guarantee cap;
  3. Centralized shareholder approval;
  4. Structurally compliant for multiple drawdowns.

X. Closing Remarks

Providing guarantees by Indonesian companies for overseas projects of foreign affiliates is legally permissible but requires careful structuring and strict compliance.

The key lies in achieving alignment among corporate benefit, corporate governance, and regulatory requirements.

Queen Law Firm is well-positioned to support such transactions by combining legal structuring with practical execution, and by delivering legal opinions that meet international financing standards.

For further discussion, we are available to review your specific transaction structure and provide tailored legal advice and formal opinions.

Haidilao Opens Its First Halal Hotpot Restaurant in Indonesia, with QUEEN LAW FIRM Supporting the Project

Posted by Dr. Guan Yue on

On 15 January 2026, Haidilao officially launched its new project in Indonesia — its first halal hotpot restaurant, “SIZZLING HOTSPOT.” The project has been systematically developed and prepared over approximately six months, from early-stage planning through to its official opening and commencement of operations. This launch represents a significant milestone in Haidilao’s Indonesia market strategy, highlighting the brand’s commitment to localization, as well as its consistent emphasis on regulatory compliance and halal standards.

As the world’s largest Muslim-majority country, Indonesia maintains a structured regulatory framework and relatively high compliance standards in the food and beverage sector, particularly in relation to halal requirements, licensing, and operational governance. The opening of SIZZLING HOTSPOT reflects not only Haidilao’s active response to local consumer demand, but also the company’s disciplined approach to cross-border operations, where compliance and governance are treated as core foundations for sustainable business growth. Throughout the six-month preparation period, the project advanced in a structured manner to ensure a stable and scalable operational model.

During the project development, QUEEN LAW FIRM served as Haidilao’s legal counsel team for this project and maintained close coordination with relevant stakeholders to support the orderly progress of the project through to its successful launch and transition into operational stage.

Following the opening, QUEEN LAW FIRM formally delivered the relevant licenses and permits to the store manager, completing the required handover procedures. This delivery represents an important compliance milestone and signifies that the restaurant has entered a more structured operational phase. Operating licenses and permits serve as a critical legal basis for commercial activities and support stable, compliant, and sustainable operations.

The launch of SIZZLING HOTSPOT is widely viewed as a key step in Haidilao’s continued expansion in Indonesia. As consumer expectations continue to rise across brand experience, service quality, and food safety, Haidilao remains committed to integrating product innovation, service enhancement, and localized operational strategies. The successful opening of this project — built through six months of preparation — also provides valuable practical experience and a replicable foundation for future expansion, particularly within Indonesia’s halal dining segment.

SIZZLING HOTSPOT has now entered its operational stage. Haidilao will continue to advance the development plans for this project, further refining its operational framework, strengthening its store network, and expanding brand presence across Indonesia. With this restaurant as a starting point, Haidilao will continue to deepen its long-term strategic footprint and drive the project’s sustained growth and scalability.

Looking ahead, QUEEN LAW FIRM will continue to serve as Haidilao’s legal counsel for this project, supporting its ongoing development and contributing to stable long-term operations and expansion. QUEEN LAW FIRM will continue to uphold high professional standards and a prudent approach, working alongside the client to support the project’s sustainable development within Indonesia.

The opening of SIZZLING HOTSPOT represents not only Haidilao’s latest achievement in international expansion, but also an important example of a Chinese restaurant brand entering and developing within the halal market in Southeast Asia. As the project continues to mature, Haidilao is expected to further strengthen its influence in Indonesia and create new momentum for broader growth in the region.