Andri Mulyono, a commissioner at PT Yasa Artha Trimanunggal (PT YAT), has been named the fifth suspect in a corruption investigation involving the Makan Bergizi Gratis (MBG) program. According to the Director of Investigation at the Attorney General’s Office (Jampidsus Kejagung), Syarief Sulaeman Nahdi, the suspect secured a role as a vendor for electric motorcycle procurement despite his company lacking the necessary dealership or workshop facilities.
The procurement project under scrutiny involves a budget of approximately Rp 1.1 trillion, though investigators are currently calculating the specific extent of the alleged price markups.
How the Vendor Secured the Contract
Investigators allege that PT YAT bypassed standard requirements through a series of irregular actions. Syarief Sulaeman Nahdi stated on Thursday (June 12, 2026) that the company did not meet the necessary criteria and that the procurement process had not yet officially begun when the arrangements were made.
To maneuver around these requirements, Andri Mulyono reportedly collaborated with an individual identified only by the initials “AA.” This partnership involved acquiring another entity, PT ASE, and maintaining active communication with procurement officials to influence the process. The Attorney General’s Office confirmed that the Harga Perkiraan Sendiri (HPS) and the Terms of Reference (KAK) for the project were conditioned by both the suspect and officials from the Badan Gizi Nasional (BGN).
Scope of the Corruption Allegations
The case centers on allegations of widespread mismanagement within the MBG program. Beyond the electric motorcycle procurement, authorities are investigating potential affiliations between suspects and the foundation managing the SPPG, as well as irregularities in the procurement of shoes, tablets, and televisions.
Regarding the electric motorcycle contract, Syarief noted that Andri Mulyono performed price markups to align the costs with the allocated budget ceiling. While the total budget for the motorbikes reached Rp 1.1 trillion, the precise unit pricing and the total value of the inflated costs remain under audit by the Attorney General’s Office.
The involvement of high-ranking BGN officials alongside private vendors suggests a systemic breakdown in procurement oversight. By conditioning the HPS—the benchmark for fair market pricing—the suspects effectively removed the competitive safeguards designed to protect public funds, turning a billion-rupiah project into a vehicle for alleged financial gain.
Current Status of the Investigation
Andri Mulyono is currently in custody and faces charges under Articles 603 and 604 of the Criminal Code. He joins four other high-profile suspects previously named in the case, including former BGN Head Dadan Hindayana, former Deputy Heads Sony Sonjaya and Lodewyk Pusung, and Asep Yusuf Somantri, an associate of Sony.
As the investigation proceeds, authorities may look into further links between the suspects and the broader procurement network. The ongoing audit of the Rp 1.1 trillion budget is expected to determine the full financial impact of the alleged markup scheme.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is Andri Mulyono and why was he arrested?
Andri Mulyono is a commissioner at PT Yasa Artha Trimanunggal. He was arrested as the fifth suspect in the MBG program corruption case for his alleged role in manipulating the procurement of electric motorcycles.
How did the suspect win the vendor contract without proper facilities?
According to the Attorney General’s Office, he collaborated with an individual identified as “AA,” acquired PT ASE, and engaged in active communication with procurement officials to condition the HPS and KAK in his favor.
What is the scale of the alleged corruption?
The investigation involves an electric motorcycle procurement budget of approximately Rp 1.1 trillion, with additional allegations regarding the procurement of shoes, tablets, and televisions for the MBG program.
Given the scale of the alleged price manipulation, what additional oversight measures do you believe are necessary to protect public procurement programs?
Related reading