Report alleged crypto investment fraud who drags names Timothy Ronald and Kalimasada continues to roll. A number of victims reported this case under suspicion of various criminal articles, ranging from the ITE Law, the Criminal Code, to alleged money laundering crimes (TPPU).
To understand the legal construction of the case, a well-known lawyer from Medan, Ranto Sibarani, SH, MH, conveyed his views to journalists Blockchainmedia.id on Saturday (17/01/2026).
Victim’s Report and Root Problems in Timothy’s Case
The Timothy Ronald case began with a report by Younger, a confessed investor suffered losses of up to IDR 3 billion. This report was addressed to Timothy Ronald and Kalimasada, founders and teachers at the Crypto Academy, for alleged misleading crypto investment invitations.
Younger said he received offers of signals and recommendations trading crypto via community groups. One of the recommendations highlighted is the purchase of assets such as coins Mantaswhich was promoted as a promising investment opportunity.
Revealed! This is the victim’s story regarding Timothy Ronald’s alleged fraud
In the promotion, the victim admitted that he was promised the potential for very high and unreasonable profits. Claimed returns are even said to reach 300 to 500 percent, thus encouraging him to take part in the scheme being offered.
However, over time, the promise of these profits did not materialize. Younger actually experienced big losses after following the recommendations trading which was conveyed in the crypto group.
Feeling aggrieved, Younger took legal action and assessed that other parties had experienced similar losses. He also admitted, deeply podcasts together with Denny Sumargo, did not read all of the Crypto Academy’s educational materials before following these recommendations.
ITE Law and Digital Profit Limits
One of the articles reported is Article 28 paragraph (1) in conjunction with Article 45A paragraph (1) of the ITE Law regarding misleading electronic information. The question is, whether promise of hundreds of percent profit through digital media can be directly qualified as a criminal act.
Responding to this, Ranto Sibarani emphasized that promotions or advertising cannot be separated from the legal responsibilities of business actors. According to him, advertising has a clear legal position and cannot be treated simply as marketing material without consequences.
“You can’t, advertising is still advertising, advertising is part of business and is protected by law, including the Consumer Protection Law Number 8 of 1999 and there is also the Indonesian Advertising Ethics,” he explained.
He emphasized that advertisement Basically it is inviting or offering business, not guaranteeing final results. Therefore, the issue of profit and loss should be placed as a consequence of the decisions taken by both parties.
“The nature of business advertising is to invite business, but profits and losses should be returned to the business person, because the profit promised will of course depend on the transaction and the consideration for the transaction is the authority of the business person, not up to the advertiser,” said Ranto.
Answered! Timothy Ronald’s Flexing Action is the Reason the Victim Joined the Crypto Academy
Thus, according to him, the misleading element in Timothy Ronald’s case It can only be questioned from a legal perspective if it is proven from the start that there was a conscious intention to spread unrealistic claims.
Criminal Code Fraud and Fund Transfer
Apart from the ITE Law, the victim also linked the allegation to Article 378 of the Criminal Code concerning fraud. According to Ranto, referring to the views of criminal law experts, elements fraud requires deception, a series of lies, or the use of false circumstances to influence the victim.
However, in the context of the Timothy Ronald case, he considered that these elements were not fulfilled. His assessment was based on the fact that there was no use of false identities or fabrication of misleading circumstances from the start.
“In Timothy’s case, the person concerned did not use a fake name and did not use fake conditions. Timothy offered business and potential profits, all decisions and positions on crypto buying and selling transactions offered were entirely in the hands of the perpetrator/player/trader, so of course it cannot be categorized as embezzlement fraud,” he concluded.
Apart from that, regarding Articles 80 to 82 of Law Number 3 of 2011 concerning Fund Transfers, Ranto emphasized the element of fighting law is a crucial point that must be proven. According to him, not all automatic fund transfer activities can be qualified as criminal acts without fulfilling these elements.
“In Articles 80 to 82 of Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 3 of 2011 concerning Fund Transfers the element of being against the law is clearly stated. In Timothy’s case, the transfer must be studied whether it is ‘against the law’? If not, then there is no criminal potential there,” he added.
Ranto also emphasized that business risk is part of education scheme which is offered. This means that all risks have been conveyed to everyone tradersand the process of transferring funds is carried out without coercion and is not unlawful.
TPPU and Incriminating Articles in the Timothy Ronald–Kalimasada Case
The victim also reported the alleged crime of money laundering based on Law Number 8 of 2010. According to Ranto, TPPU is an independent crime and does not have to wait for the original criminal decision.
“TPPU is not a continuing criminal act (vorgezette handeling). “These criminal acts are concurrent criminal acts that stand alone, even though they are related to each other,” said Ranto.
He emphasized that proof of a predicate crime is not mandatory, either directly or indirectly, because each act is legally independent and does not require proof of a predicate crime first.
This is the Case of Timothy Ronald in the Eyes of the Law regarding Alleged Crypto Academy Fraud
However, Ranto believes that the most crucial point in the case that dragged Timothy Ronald and Kalimasada to the Crypto Academy lay in the element of persuasion. According to him, this element is the main differentiator between ordinary and potential business offers criminal act.
“The article that incriminates Timothy is that if it can be proven that there was an inducement and a guarantee (guarantee) that there will be profits without risk. If the inducement exists, it will be an embezzlement fraud,” he said.
Beyond the legal aspect, Ranto expressed concern that conviction for embezzlement fraud could create a precedent that hampers the business climate. He also touched on the possibility of other motives behind law enforcement against certain figures.
“I am suspicious of law enforcement against crazy rich “Indonesia has recently been an attempt by other parties to snoop on their money,” he added.
The Line Between Education, Business Risk, and Criminal Allegation
The Timothy Ronald–Kalimasada case is related Crypto Academy class reflects the complexity of law enforcement in the crypto investment sector, especially in distinguishing the boundaries between education, promotion, business risks and potential criminal elements.
In the end, the evidentiary process in court will determine whether this case is in the realm of mere business error or has fulfilled the elements of a criminal act and the public is now waiting for the continuation.
That’s a summary of today’s crypto news that you can read to keep up with world developments digital assets And blockchain technology. Stay tuned Blockchain Media Indonesia For updates Latest about the crypto market, news bitcoinsto study guides crypto for those of you who are still beginners. [dp]
Disclaimer: Content in Blockchainmedia.id is informational only, not investment or legal advice. All financial decisions are the sole responsibility of the reader.
