DENPASAR, BALINEWS — Balinese influencer Ida Ayu Rajarani Cempaka, widely known as Kingcempaka, has reported a man identified by the initials RP to the Bali Regional Police (Polda Bali) over alleged fraud and/or fraudulent conduct involving a land lease transaction worth Rp480 million (approximately IDR 480 million).
The complaint was officially registered on October 17, 2026, under Police Report Receipt No. STTLP/LP/B/883/X/2026/SPKT/POLDA BALI. According to the complaint documents, the case concerns the lease of two plots of land with a combined area of approximately 200 square meters in Panjer, South Denpasar, Bali.
Kingcempaka intended to use the land to build a boarding house, believing the location was suitable for a rental accommodation business because of its proximity to schools and university campuses.
Based on the police report receipt, the alleged offenses were reported under Article 492 and/or Article 486 of Law No. 1 of 2023 concerning the Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP). The complainant reported a financial loss of Rp480 million.
Kingcempaka's legal representatives, Dr. H. Indra Triantoro, S.H., M.H., and Elice Novianti C., S.H., CPL, said their client had sent two formal legal notices to RP demanding a resolution. However, according to the legal team, the matter remained unresolved and the money had not been returned when the police report was filed.
The lawyers spoke to reporters at the grounds of the General Criminal Investigation Directorate of the Bali Regional Police on Saturday, October 17, 2026.
They have given RP until October 31, 2026, to demonstrate good faith and resolve the dispute. If no agreement is reached, the legal team plans to coordinate with investigators regarding further legal action, including the possibility of restorative justice, subject to applicable legal requirements.
Four Months of Communication Before the Agreement
According to Kingcempaka and her lawyers, the transaction began when she was looking for land for a business venture. She learned about the property through social media, online marketplaces, and recommendations from friends or acquaintances.
RP allegedly offered approximately two are of land at an initial rate of Rp12 million per are per year. Following approximately four months of communication and negotiations, the parties agreed to a 20-year lease for a total payment of Rp480 million.
Kingcempaka said her communication with RP had appeared consistent with an ordinary business relationship between a prospective tenant and a property broker. According to her account, RP presented himself as someone who could offer and arrange the lease of the land.
She said she had no reason to suspect that the transaction might lead to a legal dispute, as the offer and subsequent discussions appeared convincing.
“I was looking at land because I wanted to build a boarding house. I was looking in the Denpasar area, and the location was busy with schools and university students. I thought, ‘This seems like the right property for me,’” Kingcempaka said when describing how she became interested in the land.
She explained that she had not anticipated any legal problems. The communication had continued for several months, and she believed the transaction was a conventional land lease agreement.
Rp480 Million Paid in Cash Before a Notary
The lease transaction took place on May 21, 2026. According to the police report, Kingcempaka leased two plots, each measuring approximately 100 square meters, associated with Certificate of Ownership (Sertifikat Hak Milik/SHM) No. 3268.
The agreement was documented in Lease Agreement Deed No. 03, dated May 21, 2026, for a term of 20 years.
The complaint states that Kingcempaka paid Rp480 million in cash directly to RP. The payment was made at Peso Cafe on Jalan Merdeka, Renon, Denpasar, in the presence of several witnesses, including notary Ketut Desi Ari Utami.
According to the complainant's account, the transaction was supported by a payment receipt and evidence of the cash withdrawal, while the lease agreement was recorded in a formal deed.
Kingcempaka's lawyers said their client proceeded with the transaction believing that the land could be legally leased and used for the intended boarding-house project.
However, the dispute emerged when she attempted to begin work on the property several months later.
Construction Preparations Halted After a Person Claimed Ownership
After completing the transaction, Kingcempaka began preparing to develop the land into a boarding house. According to her legal team, the preparations included purchasing construction materials, arranging foundation stones, hiring workers, preparing a site plan, and engaging an architect.
On October 4, 2026, she intended to begin managing the property by leveling the land and placing stones in preparation for construction, according to the police report.
The work was stopped after a person claiming to be the landowner arrived at the site and informed the parties that the lease agreement between the landowner and RP had been cancelled.
According to information subsequently received by Kingcempaka's side, the cancellation was allegedly connected to a failure by RP to make the required payments to the landowner.
The incident prompted Kingcempaka and her representatives to investigate the property's legal status and review the documents underlying the transaction.
Kingcempaka said she was shocked to discover that the situation differed from what she had understood when signing the agreement.
She explained that she had not noticed any warning signs during the earlier negotiations. According to her account, RP had also given the impression that he would assist with matters related to preparing the property, including land leveling.
The incident left her distressed, particularly because she had already committed a substantial amount of money to a business project and begun preparing for construction.
She said she hoped the case would raise awareness and help prevent other people from experiencing similar problems when leasing or investing in property.
Lawyers Point to a Previous Cancellation Deed
Following the confrontation at the site, Kingcempaka's legal representatives contacted the party claiming ownership and examined documents related to the land lease.
According to the lawyers, their subsequent inquiries indicated that RP was not the landowner, contrary to what their client had initially understood. They said RP allegedly held leasehold rights over the property and that the landowner had informed them of problems concerning payments under the underlying lease arrangement.
The legal team said the landowner showed them Deed No. 09, dated June 12, 2026, concerning the cancellation of the lease agreement between the landowner and RP.
The cancellation deed has become a central issue in the dispute because it was dated before Kingcempaka discovered the problem at the property on October 4.
Kingcempaka had entered into her own lease agreement with RP on May 21, 2026, and paid Rp480 million on that date.
Her lawyers said their client had not been informed of the cancellation before she attempted to begin work on the land. They also said RP had not provided an explanation or arranged a refund after the problem came to light.
“After the cancellation deed was issued, RP did not inform us. There was no communication, no notification about the cancellation deed, and no coordination regarding the return of the lease payment,” one of the lawyers said, explaining why the legal team had issued formal notices.
The lawyers argued that investigators needed to examine the sequence of events, including RP's legal position in the transaction, the status of his leasehold rights, the cancellation process, and his obligations toward Kingcempaka.
Nevertheless, the allegations have yet to be established through legal proceedings. The ownership status of the land, the contractual relationships between the parties, and what each party knew about the cancellation must be verified through relevant documents and official statements.
Two Legal Notices Sent, but No Refund Reported
Kingcempaka's legal representatives said they had sent RP two formal legal notices requesting a resolution of the dispute.
According to the lawyers, those efforts had not resulted in a settlement or the return of the money by the time the police report was filed.
The legal team also said it had visited an address associated with RP at Kertalangu Mansion. According to their account, the house was closed and had reportedly been rented to another person.
The lawyers said they had received information indicating that RP remained in Bali and had communicated with them about the possibility of resolving the dispute during October.
However, they said the Rp480 million payment had not been returned and the matter remained unresolved.
The complaint was therefore submitted to the Bali Regional Police for further investigation.
According to the police report receipt, the complaint was recorded on October 17, 2026, at 12:27 p.m. Central Indonesian Time (WITA). The reported transaction took place on May 21, 2026, at Peso Cafe in East Denpasar, while the dispute at the property emerged on October 4, 2026.
The legal team said the complaint was intended to seek a formal investigation into the alleged offenses and clarify the financial losses suffered by their client.
Lawyers Consider Further Legal Action Over the Deeds
In addition to the alleged fraud and/or fraudulent conduct, Kingcempaka's lawyers have raised questions about the preparation of the original lease deed and the subsequent cancellation deed.
They said investigators should examine whether the cancellation of the agreement between the landowner and RP was communicated to the party that had entered into the subsequent lease with RP under Deed No. 03.
The lawyers also want the circumstances surrounding Deed No. 09, dated June 12, 2026, to be clarified, including the basis for the cancellation, the parties involved, and the implications for Kingcempaka's lease agreement.
According to the legal team, the same notary was associated with both the initial lease transaction and the cancellation process. They questioned why a cancellation that they believe affected their client's interests had not been communicated to her before the dispute emerged at the property.
The lawyers said they were considering further legal action concerning an alleged false statement in an authentic deed.
However, based on the information provided, the formal police complaint filed so far concerns alleged fraud and/or fraudulent conduct involving RP. The available documents do not establish that a separate complaint concerning the alleged false statement has been filed.
Nor do the materials provided indicate that any person has been formally named as a suspect or convicted in connection with the deeds.
Any allegation involving the notary or other parties would therefore require further investigation and verification by the relevant authorities.
Legal Team Sets October 31 Deadline for Settlement
Despite filing the police complaint, Kingcempaka's legal team said it remained open to an amicable settlement if RP demonstrated good faith.
The lawyers have given RP until October 31, 2026, to resolve the dispute. They said the deadline was intended to provide an opportunity to address the reported financial loss without prolonging the legal conflict.
If an agreement is reached, the legal team plans to coordinate with investigators to discuss whether the matter could be resolved through restorative justice, subject to applicable laws and procedures.
Such an arrangement would not automatically mean that the police report must be withdrawn. Any restorative justice process would have to satisfy the relevant legal requirements and be assessed by the authorities handling the case.
If no resolution is reached by the deadline, the lawyers said they would consider further legal steps in coordination with investigators and in accordance with the progress of the case.
They expressed hope that the legal process would clarify the parties' respective responsibilities, establish the circumstances surrounding the transaction, and address the reported financial loss.
Lawyers Raise Concern About Potential Other Victims
Kingcempaka's legal team suspects that other people may have experienced similar problems involving property transactions associated with RP. However, they said that only one formal police complaint concerning the alleged fraud and/or fraudulent conduct had been filed by their side at the time of their statements.
No verified information was provided regarding the number of potential additional victims or any other police reports involving similar allegations.
The possibility of other victims therefore remains unconfirmed.
The lawyers encouraged anyone who believes they may have suffered losses in similar transactions to seek appropriate legal advice and consider reporting the matter to the authorities.
The case also highlights the importance of conducting due diligence before entering into a property lease or investment agreement.
Prospective tenants and investors should verify the property's ownership status, the identity of the registered owner, the authority of the person offering the property, the validity and duration of any existing leasehold rights, and whether the agreement has been cancelled or is subject to other legal restrictions.
Large payments should also be made through traceable arrangements after the relevant documents and the authority of all parties have been independently verified.
As of the preparation of this report, the matter had been reported to the Bali Regional Police, and Kingcempaka's legal team was awaiting further developments.
The materials available for this report did not include an official response from RP or a statement from the notary named in connection with the transaction.
The allegations remain subject to investigation, and no determination of criminal liability should be made unless and until the allegations are established through the appropriate legal process.
