Why Was an Indonesian Activists Bank Account Frozen During a Protest?

Indonesia’s Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (PPATK) has formally denied requesting the freezing of a bank account belonging to a representative of the Pati Bersatu Community Alliance (AMPB).

The clarification follows public concern over the sudden suspension of access to a Bank Mandiri account belonging to AMPB coordinator Supriyono, who was in Jakarta with dozens of residents from Pati to take part in a demonstration outside the House of Representatives (DPR RI) on Friday (21 August 2026).

The account reportedly held around Rp80.9 million (£3,800), comprising Supriyono’s personal savings and donations collected from members of the public. The money was intended to cover food, transport and accommodation for demonstrators during their stay in Jakarta.

The AMPB protest included demands for the immediate passage of the Asset Forfeiture Bill and the introduction of the death penalty for corruption offences.

The account became inaccessible while Supriyono was accompanying the protesters. A screenshot of his banking application circulated online, showing a usable balance of zero and a separate notice stating that Rp80,935,478 had been blocked.

Bank confirms account was frozen

While PPATK has denied ordering the freeze, Bank Mandiri has confirmed that access to the account was restricted.

The state-owned bank said the measure followed a request from law enforcement and was carried out in accordance with applicable procedures. It also apologised to the customer for the inconvenience.

However, the bank did not identify which law enforcement agency had made the request, nor did it explain which investigation or alleged offence had prompted the action.

The lack of information has left an important question unanswered: who ordered the account to be frozen, and on what legal grounds?

What does Indonesian law say?

Bank account freezes are subject to a number of legal safeguards in Indonesia.

Under Bank Indonesia Regulation No. 2/19/PBI/2000, requests to block or seize bank deposits are subject to specific legal requirements, including circumstances involving a person who has been formally designated a suspect or defendant in a criminal case.

Other state institutions also have certain powers to restrict access to financial assets. The Financial Services Authority (OJK), for example, has powers under Law No. 4 of 2023. PPATK can also temporarily suspend transactions where there are strong indications of money laundering, under PPATK Regulation No. 18 of 2017.

Tax authorities have separate powers under Government Regulation No. 135 of 2000, subject to the relevant requirements.

The legal framework was also highlighted by the Civil Society Coalition, which has questioned the basis for the freeze.

Quoted by the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI), the coalition said authorities and the bank should explain who requested the freeze, what case was being investigated and how the funds were connected to any alleged offence.

“Without that, the account freeze has no legally accountable basis,” the coalition said on Monday (24 August).

The coalition also referred to Article 140 of Law No. 20 of 2025 on the Criminal Procedure Code, which treats freezing as a coercive measure requiring authorisation from the head of the relevant district court.

In urgent circumstances, investigators may reportedly impose a freeze before obtaining approval, but they must seek judicial approval within 2 x 24 hours.

The coalition argued that even where special legislation grants an authority the power to freeze an account, the legal basis, reasons and procedure must remain subject to scrutiny.

Concerns over freedom of assembly

Civil society groups have raised concerns because the account was frozen while its owner was taking part in a public demonstration.

They argue that restricting access to funds intended for food, transport and accommodation could have an impact beyond the individual account holder and potentially affect the ability of protesters to participate in a demonstration.

“Blocking citizens’ accounts while they are expressing criticism creates a serious danger,” the coalition said, arguing that economic pressure should not become a means of restricting freedom of expression.

Indonesia’s Constitution guarantees citizens’ rights to assemble and express their views, as well as rights to security and property.

At the same time, banks have obligations towards their customers. Financial Services Authority Regulation No. 22 of 2023 sets out principles including transparency, fair treatment, responsible business conduct and consumer asset protection.

The coalition therefore argued that banks cannot simply rely on a general reference to a request from law enforcement. They must ensure that such requests come from an authorised official, have a clear legal basis and meet the applicable requirements.

Who ordered the freeze?

PPATK’s denial has narrowed, but not resolved, the question of who instructed Bank Mandiri to restrict the account.

Authorities with relevant powers could include law enforcement agencies, the tax authorities or OJK, depending on the legal basis for the action.

As of Monday (24 August), however, police, tax authorities and OJK had not publicly confirmed whether they had requested the freezing of Supriyono’s account.

The case therefore leaves a broader question for public authorities and financial institutions: when a citizen’s access to their money is restricted, how transparent should the legal basis and process be?