PERADI disbars Ida Bagus Wikantara

PERADI Disbars Ida Bagus Wikantara


“...for taking advantage of the stupidity of his client to turn her into his milk cow...”



atau pakai Bahasa Indonesia


Here is a nightmare case. The start was written up in Eleven Demons, but it continues with, if possible, even more shocking revelations as the result of the recent PERADI case.

The complaint was brought by the children and ex-husband of Ida Bagus Wikantara’s client Ni Made Jati on Ni Made Jati’s behalf, on the grounds that Ida Bagus Wikantara systematically manipulated and took advantage of his client who lacked the education to defend her own and her family’s best interests.


The PERADI decision notes:

“the DEFENDANT did not use his right to reply, so it is appropriate to consider the DEFENDANT as having agreed with the violations of ethics as set forth by the COMPLAINANT,”


The complaint states:

This complaint is based on a case that started with a simple divorce already agreed between husband Michael Patrick Donnelly and wife Ni Made Jati with the intention of making a peaceful and fair settlement, but after the entry of DEFENDANT Ida Bagus Wikantara, the divorce case developed into 4 complicated civil cases and 11 criminal cases in two countries for 10 years, all handled by the DEFENDANT. Due to the manipulations of the DEFENDANT, the client’s family was destroyed. The four victims include two boys of the marriage named Wayan Sean Donnelly, now 22 years old, and Surya Brenden Donnelly, now 20 years old, as well as Michael Patrick Donnelly, as well as Ni Made Jati, the client of the DEFENDANT.”


The complaint continues:

“... in early April 2005, Ni Made Jati entered the office of the DEFENDANT to seek legal aid in a divorce, and at that moment the DEFENDANT learned that Ni Made Jati and her husband had assets in common with a high value (currently estimated near Rp 400 billion), that Ni Made Jati had limited education only through Elementary School Grade 5 with poor knowledge of the law, that Ni Made Jati had documents that could be used to carry out a fraud, and that Ni Made Jati apparently lacked moral conscience and could be persuaded to engage in a deception at the instigation of the DEFENDANT. By turning a simple divorce into a complex series of civil and criminal cases, the DEFENDANT has managed to enjoy a 10-year stream of income from family assets belonging to the COMPLAINANT and the DEFENDANT’s client Ni Made Jati.

“... Even supposing that the DEFENDANT might offer an excuse that he was simply following instructions from the client Ni Made Jati, there is an ethical responsibility for a lawyer to help his client, even if his client is ignorant or mentally disordered, such that it is a violation of the code of ethics to help any client carry out criminal actions or destroy her own family.

“As the ex-husband of Ni Made Jati, the COMPLAINANT expresses the opinion that in April 2005 when the DEFENDANT first met with the client, Ni Made Jati had a feeling of love as is natural from a mother to her children, that Ni Made Jati could not possibly have requested the DEFENDANT to destroy her family and alienate her children. But as a result of this case, the client Ni Made Jati then lost her children due to the orders and instructions of the DEFENDANT.”


In essence, Ida Bagus Wikantara convinced his client to file for divorce based not upon the original legal marriage which took place in 1985, but upon false marriage documents claiming a marriage 11 years after the actual legal marriage, which would have the effect:

  • Children who were born in 1993 and 1994 would be declared born outside marriage, and therefore the children and their father would lose their legal parent / child relationship,
  • All the family property would be declared the prior existing property of the wife before marriage.


“After the DEFENDANT advised his client to file an Accusation of Divorce based on false marriage documents, Ni Made Jati was afraid of being reported and convicted of committing a criminal act, but the DEFENDANT was immune to prosecution due to his status as a lawyer. It is alleged that starting from the time of the filing for divorce, the DEFENDANT held his client hostage to her legal situation, and the client was dominated by the DEFENDANT because the DEFENDANT increasingly pressured Ni Made Jati that her security could only be guaranteed if she strictly followed the advice of the DEFENDANT.”


The Complaint and Summary of Evidence goes on to demonstrate that Ida Bagus Wikantara systematically and intentionally deceived his client about Indonesian law and about the results of court decisions, took steps to cut communications between his client and her husband and children, intentionally counseled his client to abandon her children, took concrete steps to ensure that his client would lose legal custody of her children, and blocked all attempts at settlement and even instructed her to disobey specific court orders for mediation and resolution of family issues.

In 2008 decisions of the Mahkamah Agung or Supreme Court of Indonesia confirmed that the original marriage of 1985 was the legal marriage with force of law in Indonesia, and that Ni Made Jati’s acquisition of a new false marriage document in 1996 without her husband’s knowledge was Perbuatan Melawan Hukum or an action contrary to law.

Nevertheless, Ida Bagus Wikantara continued to block communications and settlement of family issues.

In 2009 as court cases dragged on

“ a result of advice from the DEFENDANT, Ni Made Jati violated multiple court orders from the California judge and left her children, causing the court to rule that Ni Made Jati had "abandoned her children,” and Ni Made Jati then lost all rights to custody of her children.”


The deceptions are extensive, too long to detail here although they are explained clearly in the Summary of Evidence. The PERADI decision sums it up colorfully:

“ 3) ...The Judges’' Council agrees that the Accused has violated the Code of Ethics of the Lawyers of Indonesia, as well as committing acts with criminal and civil violations which caused damages to the Complainant and his family, including the wife of the Complainant who was the client of the Accused and to the children of the Complainant.

“ 4) ...For 10 years he practiced law in a manner contrary to ethics, including ordering his client who nota bene has an education limited to Class 5 of Elementary School to violate a divorce agreement already settled, destroying communications between husband and wife, and causing the children to lose contact with their mother, and lying to his client concerning true facts and events of law. Also he used the services of thugs to chase the Complainant and the manager of a restaurant owned by the Complainant, committed criminal acts including using false legal documents and false witnesses in court, and taking advantage of the stupidity of his client and making her into his milk cow and causing a goat fight between the Complainant and his wife.”


The PERADI judgment went to to rule:

3. Sentence the Accused with the permanent withdrawal of his license to practice law as an Attorney in accordance with Section 7 paragraph 1d Regulations No.1 8 2006 Regarding Lawyers jo. Specific Regulations Section 16 paragraph 2 letter d of the Code of Ethics of Indonesian Lawyers.


Documents in connection with the PERADI decision are available as pdfs here: