Sambal Bakar Partnership Dispute in Surabaya Leads to Police Complaint

The partnership behind the Sambal Bakar Indonesia outlet at G-Walk in Surabaya has ended in a police complaint following the outlet’s closure. According to a Kompas.com report dated 14 October 2026, Stefanita Virdiani Suhart reported Richard Theodore to Surabaya City Police over alleged fraud and embezzlement involving investment funds of IDR 1.4 billion (Indonesian rupiah). These remain reported allegations, not a finding of wrongdoing against the person named in the complaint.

From a planned drinks franchise to a restaurant venture

Stefanita, a 37-year-old Surabaya resident, filed the police complaint on Monday, 12 October 2026. The report described Richard as an influencer and CEO of Sambal Bakar Indonesia.

The complainant’s lawyer, Melany Lassa, explained that the business relationship began on 25 January 2022. According to her account, Stefanita and Richard verbally agreed at that time to invest together in a drinks franchise.

Around a month later, Richard reportedly said that the drinks business could not be operated in Surabaya. The proposed venture then shifted to Sambal Bakar Indonesia, a restaurant brand popularised by Benjamin Master Adhisurya, known as Iben, alongside Richard Theodore.

The change from a proposed drinks franchise to a restaurant partnership is an important part of the chronology presented by the complainant. The two arrangements should not automatically be treated as equivalent. Readers in the franchise sector should bear in mind the distinction between the original proposal and the business that ultimately opened.

A written agreement and differing capital contributions

On 6 February 2023, Stefanita formalised the partnership by signing Cooperation Agreement No. 03/SBI-SVS-SBY/I/23. This followed the discussions and changes to the business plan described by her lawyer.

According to the complainant’s chronology, as reported by Kompas.com, the agreed total investment to open the outlet was almost IDR 2 billion. The initial capital contributions were to be split equally, with each party providing 50 per cent.

However, the complainant says Stefanita’s actual contribution reached IDR 1.4 billion, or around 70 per cent of the total capital. The difference between the allegedly agreed split and the amount she claims to have paid is one of the central issues in the dispute.

These figures need to be understood in context. Almost IDR 2 billion was the total investment reportedly envisaged in the initial agreement to open the outlet. IDR 1.4 billion, meanwhile, is the amount of Stefanita’s investment at issue in the complaint. The figures are not interchangeable, and the inclusion of an amount in a police complaint does not, in itself, prove that a criminal offence occurred.

Outlet closure followed by a dispute

The dispute between the parties came to the fore when the G-Walk Surabaya branch of Sambal Bakar Indonesia officially ceased trading. Kompas.com’s report identified the closure as a key turning point in a business relationship that had begun in early 2022.

Mediation efforts failed to produce an agreement. According to the complainant, the other party continued to use a calculation method that she considered to have been imposed unilaterally. Stefanita then took the matter to the authorities.

The complaint concerns alleged fraud and/or embezzlement under Article 492 and/or Article 486 of Law No. 1 of 2023 on Indonesia’s Criminal Code. These provisions form part of the reported case; citing them does not mean that the elements of a criminal offence have been proven.

When considering these developments, it is important to distinguish between a business closure, a dispute over financial calculations between partners, and allegations of criminal conduct. The outlet’s closure is a reported operational event. The allegations of fraud and embezzlement, and the claim that calculations were imposed unilaterally, come from the complainant and must continue to be treated as allegations.

Documentation lessons for prospective partners

For those considering franchise or partnership opportunities, this case highlights matters worth clarifying before committing capital. The sequence described by the complainant includes a verbal agreement, a change in the type of business, the signing of a contract, differing capital contributions and a dispute after the outlet closed.

As a precaution, prospective partners should ask for every change to the business plan to be recorded in writing. The documentation should explain which business will actually operate, each party’s contribution and how any additional capital requirements will be approved. Payment records should also be kept alongside the agreement and records of approval for any changes.

Pre-investment discussions should look beyond opening the outlet. Prospective partners should also seek clarity on access to financial reports, how financial balances will be calculated if the business closes, and the process for resolving disputes. These are general precautions, not conclusions about the terms of the agreement between the parties in this case.

Practical takeaway: before committing capital, make sure that changes to the business, the allocation of contributions and the arrangements for leaving the partnership are clearly documented and understood by all parties.