Ruben Onsu Files Further Police Complaints as Sarwendah Defends Video and Seeks Forensic Review

A 27 minute recording becomes the focus of a widening dispute

Ruben Onsu has filed further police complaints over the recording and distribution of a private video call, widening a dispute with his former wife, Sarwendah, that already involves child custody, a divorce agreement and allegations of unauthorized access to their son Betrand Peto's email. The latest complaints were filed at Polda Metro Jaya in Jakarta early on October 13, 2026, according to Ruben's lawyer, Minola Sebayang.

The central disagreement concerns what happened to a recording that Sarwendah says originally lasted 27 minutes. Ruben alleges that parts of the circulating video do not match what actually occurred. Sarwendah acknowledges publishing only a few minutes, but denies fabricating the events shown. Her legal team also says the other participant's face was blurred at his request.

Police have confirmed receiving Ruben's earlier complaint, filed on October 11, concerning alleged defamation or slander through electronic media. They referred it to the Cybercrime Directorate for further examination. A separate complaint filed earlier that day concerns alleged access to Betrand's email and the distribution of his private photographs and videos.

No completed forensic findings or determination of criminal responsibility have been announced. Digital forensics practitioner Abimanyu Wachjoewidajat, whom Sarwendah's side has engaged to examine the recording, says his initial visual assessment did not reveal strong indications of artificial intelligence. He has also stressed that examining the original media and checking its audio are still necessary.

The dispute therefore involves several separate issues: whether the recording accurately represents the conversation, whether it was recorded and distributed with sufficient permission, and whether unrelated private material belonging to Betrand was obtained unlawfully. Evidence resolving one issue would not automatically resolve the others.

What Ruben reported on October 11

Minola says Ruben made two police reports at different times on October 11, 2026. The first, filed in the early hours with Betrand accompanying him, concerned alleged unauthorized access to Betrand's personal email. The second, submitted at 3 p.m. Western Indonesian Time, concerned the circulation of Ruben's video call with a man.

The email complaint is reported under reference STTLPB/7627, while the defamation complaint is reported as STTLP/B/7634/Polda Metro Jaya. These references identify the reported complaints, not findings that an offense occurred.

Polda Metro Jaya spokesperson Budi Hermanto confirmed that Ruben's complaint concerned alleged defamation or slander through electronic media. He said a flash drive and screenshots of an Instagram post had been submitted. Police public information official Onkoseno Grandiarso also confirmed receipt and said investigators would examine the report further.

Police did not publicly identify the reported party or the precise post under examination in their initial statements. Although some accounts describe the complaint as directed at Sarwendah, that description goes beyond what police themselves disclosed. Onkoseno said the reported party was still under investigation.

Further complaints name two other parties

The dispute expanded early on October 13 when Ruben filed a further complaint concerning alleged recording and distribution without permission. Minola identified the two reported parties by the initials AA or AO, and F, also known as Y. He said the filing was accepted by Polda Metro Jaya's integrated police service center under registration number 7671.

The account of the latest filings also describes another complaint alleging defamation through the video. It does not provide a separate registration number for that complaint, so the precise number and structure of the new cases cannot be established from the reported details alone.

Minola said the complaints invoked Articles 258 and 259 of the Criminal Code and described a possible maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. That is the lawyer's account of the provisions and potential punishment, rather than an announced police charging decision or a court ruling.

He also said Ruben had closed the possibility of reconciliation and considered restorative justice unlikely. Restorative justice refers to a process that seeks resolution through participation by the affected parties rather than proceeding solely toward punishment. The lawyer's position does not establish whether such a process would legally be available or how investigators would decide to proceed.

Ruben has not publicly identified the disputed passages

Ruben's position goes beyond the observation that a shorter version was posted. Minola says his client suspects that parts of the video are inconsistent with the actual conversation. Speaking in Kuningan, South Jakarta, on October 12, the lawyer said Ruben would identify those discrepancies when giving a formal statement to investigators.

Minola Sebayang, Ruben's lawyer, described the suspicion in these words:

Patut diduga, menurut klien kami, ada editan

The statement says that, according to his client, there are grounds to suspect editing. Minola did not publicly specify the disputed timestamps, words or sequences. He said those details would be presented during the BAP process, the formal written record of a person's examination by investigators.

This leaves a substantial distinction between an allegation of altered meaning and evidence demonstrating it. Ruben's team also alleges the conversation was recorded without his permission and subsequently used unlawfully. Those allegations concern consent and publication as well as the recording's accuracy.

Sarwendah acknowledges cuts but denies fabrication

Sarwendah says the original recording ran for 27 minutes and that she published only several minutes to support her explanation of events connected to CCTV footage Ruben had posted. In an Instagram Story on October 12, she acknowledged shortening the recording while denying that she changed the events it depicted.

Sarwendah, responding to the editing allegation, described the distinction between reducing the duration and constructing a different account:

Yang dipotong adalah durasinya, bukan direkayasa isi kejadiannya,

Her statement says the duration was cut, rather than the events being fabricated. She invited anyone who believed the video was fake, generated using AI or manipulated to defame someone to report it to police so that digital forensic testing could examine its authenticity.

Her lawyer Pablo Benoa offered a somewhat different description on October 12. He said the editing consisted only of blurring the face of the man identified as Y, at Y's request. Sarwendah's own account acknowledges shortening, while Pablo's account describes only facial blurring. The two statements therefore differ in how broadly they describe the changes made before publication.

Neither statement establishes whether the selection of excerpts preserved the full conversation's meaning. A recording can contain genuine images and speech while leaving out context. Conversely, shortening a video does not itself prove that its contents were fabricated. The disputed passages and the complete recording would be central to examining that distinction.

Who supplied the recording and gave permission?

Pablo says Sarwendah received the recording directly from Y, Ruben's conversation partner, who recorded it using his own phone. According to the lawyer, Y signed a written statement confirming that the electronic information belonged to him and authorizing Sarwendah to share it publicly.

Pablo argues that this permission means the upload did not violate Article 32 of Indonesia's Electronic Information and Transactions Law, commonly known as the ITE Law. His argument rests on Y being the lawful owner of the recording and having authorized its transmission. That is a legal position advanced by Sarwendah's representative, not a ruling on the complaint.

The competing accounts concern different kinds of consent. Sarwendah's side cites permission from the person who supplied the recording. Ruben's side alleges that he did not authorize the recording or its distribution. Establishing who recorded a file and who permitted an upload would not, by itself, settle every question about the rights of the other participant.

The account of how Sarwendah first encountered the video is also not uniform. She reportedly said Artos showed her the recording in connection with alleged interactions involving Artos's partner. Pablo says she obtained it directly from Y. Those descriptions could concern different stages of the exchange, but a complete chain of possession has not been publicly established.

An Instagram account identified as @fachrufyn_ posted a version without facial blurring on the afternoon of October 12 and asserted that it was original. The account holder was described as the man believed to have spoken with Ruben. That assertion is not an independent authentication, and it is not clear whether the upload contained the entire 27 minute conversation.

Forensic examination remains unfinished

Abimanyu Wachjoewidajat says he has received longer original video material and has been asked to act as an expert witness. Sarwendah's side appointed him to examine the recording. He says his legal assessment will focus on the original media rather than relying only on the version published online.

His initial visual assessment found no strong indication that AI had generated the conversation. However, he has separated that preliminary observation from a completed digital examination. He also says the audio needs further testing and must be compared with the images.

Abimanyu, a telematics and digital forensics practitioner, stated the limits of his examination:

Dari media tersebut sudah saya lihat, tapi lihatnya hanya secara visual. Saya masih membutuhkan waktu untuk melihatnya secara digital,

He explained that differences between mouth movements and sound can arise from interruptions or recording quality. Blurring, resizing and cropping may indicate that a video has been processed, but do not automatically show that it was generated using AI. This distinction matters because genuine footage can be edited without synthetic images or voices being introduced.

Abimanyu says his examination will refer to ISO 27037:2012, an international standard addressing the handling of potential digital evidence. He also describes approaches he calls 4R, covering Rentang, Reka, Rangkai and Runut, and 4T, covering Teliti, Telisik, Telusur and Terukur. Naming a standard or method does not substitute for publishing findings or explaining how particular conclusions were reached.

A report headline refers to a target of two days for results, but the detailed account does not establish when that period begins or provide a confirmed release date. No completed report is described. His early visual observations should therefore not be presented as a final police forensic conclusion.

Betrand's email complaint concerns separate private material

The earlier October 11 complaint concerns Betrand Peto, identified as 21, and allegations that someone entered his email or personal data account without permission, took photographs and videos, and passed them to social media accounts for publication. The videos reportedly included private footage of him spending time with friends.

Minola says Betrand checked his account after private material began circulating and found a connection to another email account. The complaint identifies that account and two telephone numbers that Betrand believed belonged to Sarwendah. That stated belief does not establish who controlled the accounts or performed any particular login.

The lawyer distinguishes two alleged acts: obtaining data without authorization, and then distributing it. Those acts may involve different people and different evidence. Establishing that a file appeared online would not, on its own, demonstrate who accessed the email account or how the file was obtained.

Minola says the task of investigating, summoning and examining the relevant parties has been left to police. No technical findings about account access, identification of a responsible user or conclusion connecting a particular login to the circulated files have been announced in the reported developments.

Instagram removal does not settle authenticity

By 11 a.m. on October 13, Sarwendah's disputed video post was no longer visible. Earlier descriptions called it deleted. Sarwendah later said she had not removed it herself and that Instagram took it down after receiving more user reports, despite an appeal that initially kept it online.

She also said her account's live broadcasting function had been restricted for one year and that she had received a warning about a possible account ban. These are her descriptions of Instagram's actions. The platform's precise reason for removing the post, the number of reports received and its review findings have not been established.

The distinction between a post disappearing and a verified explanation for its disappearance is important. A removal does not show that the recording was false, and an unsuccessful challenge to a removal would not establish that publication was lawful. Content moderation and criminal investigation address different questions.

Police say Ruben submitted screenshots and a flash drive with his complaint. That means some material was preserved for examination, although the publicly described evidence does not establish which versions of the recording are on the drive or whether investigators have obtained the original 27 minute file.

The custody hearing and sequence of events

The criminal complaints are unfolding alongside litigation at the South Jakarta District Court. The wider dispute reportedly intensified in mid 2026 over implementation of the former couple's divorce agreement, known as Akta 39. It began with arrangements for sharing care of their two children and expanded into disputes over financial support, custody and personal allegations.

Sarwendah has also brought a breach of contract lawsuit against Ruben. Her lawyer Chris Sam Siwu says his team is concentrating on the custody proceedings, with criminal matters assigned to other legal representatives. He says Sarwendah understood the consequences of the disputed upload and was not surprised that complaints followed.

The next custody hearing was scheduled for October 14, 2026, in person rather than through the electronic court system. Reports differ slightly on its scope: one describes initial documentary evidence from both sides, while another specifies documentary evidence from the plaintiff, Ruben. Chris says developments in the video dispute could become additional evidence in the custody case, but no ruling on their use has been announced.

The reported sequence is:

• October 10: Sarwendah posts excerpts of Ruben's video call.
• October 11, early hours: Ruben and Betrand report alleged unauthorized email access.
• October 11, 3 p.m.: Ruben files the complaint concerning alleged defamation through the video.
• October 12: Police confirm receipt; the lawyers address editing and permission; an account posts footage without facial blurring.
• October 13, early hours: Ruben files further complaints concerning two other parties.
• October 13: Sarwendah attributes the post's disappearance to Instagram; Abimanyu describes his preliminary assessment.
• October 14: The custody case is scheduled to proceed to documentary evidence.

One account dates Chris's comments August 13, 2026, while other accounts place the response on October 13 and connect it to the October 14 hearing. The August entry conflicts with that surrounding chronology. The established next step in the reported court schedule is the October hearing, while dates for police examinations and a final forensic report have not been confirmed.

The Bottom Line

• Ruben filed two complaints on October 11 and further complaints on October 13 over alleged unauthorized recording, distribution and defamation.
• Sarwendah says she shortened a 27 minute recording but did not fabricate the events shown.
• Her lawyer says the conversation partner gave written permission to publish and requested facial blurring.
• Police confirmed receipt of the earlier defamation complaint and referred it for cybercrime examination.
• Abimanyu's initial visual assessment found no strong signs of AI, but digital and audio testing remain unfinished.
• The separate email complaint concerns alleged access to and distribution of Betrand's private material.
• Sarwendah attributes the video's removal to Instagram; the platform's detailed reasoning is not established.
• The custody hearing was scheduled for October 14, 2026. No final forensic findings or criminal determination have been announced.