Who is Mr. P? Ruben Onsu Fraud Case & Media's Dark Side

📅 Agustus 29, 2026 ✍️ Redaksi Sosiolegal

Press Release of Fraud Case Featuring Ruben Onsu as Suspect. By Sosiolegal

By: Tri Lukman Hakim, S.H.

Founder of Sosiolegal | Global-Indexed Socio-Legal Researcher (ORCID ID: 0009-0003-4829-1185)

The entertainment world is once again shaken by shocking news. Renowned presenter and entrepreneur, Ruben Onsu, has officially been named a suspect by the South Jakarta Metro Police over an alleged fraud and investment fund embezzlement case.

However, amidst the heat of this criminal news whirlwind, there is one anomaly that tickles the public's logic: why is the artist's full name plastered across every headline, while the informant is only referred to by the mysterious initial, Mr. P?

This phenomenon raises a critical question. Is the initial P genuinely used to protect the informant's identity under the law, or is this purely a media conspiracy to rake in millions of traffic?

Press Law and Code of Ethics: What Do the Rules Say?

If we dissect Law No. 40 of 1999 concerning the Press, legally there is not a single article that obligates the media to hide the name of the informant using the initial P or the suspect in a general criminal case.

The technical rules regarding the concealment of identity are instead specifically regulated in the Journalistic Code of Ethics (KEJ).

Let's look at Article 5 of the Journalistic Code of Ethics. The article states: Indonesian journalists shall not mention and broadcast the identity of victims of immoral crimes and shall not mention the identity of children who are perpetrators of crimes.

This means the absolute obligation to use initials ethically only applies to victims of immoral acts and minors.

An alleged business capital fraud case involving an adult informant clearly does not fall into this category. The use of the initial Mr. P is essentially an editorial choice, not a legal mandate.

Read Also: Why Expats Keep Losing in Indonesia: The Unwritten Legal Law

Double Standards and Cyber Media Guidelines

Herein lies the irony. In the Cyber Media News Guidelines (PPMS) and Article 3 of the KEJ, journalists are required to always verify information and apply the presumption of innocence.

However, field practices actually give rise to an incredibly skewed double standard:

Presumption of Innocence Ignored: Ethically, someone who has not been proven guilty in court should be protected. If the informant is initialized, ideally the suspect should also be written as Artist RO. However, for the sake of news headlines and reader clicks, the artist's name is sold entirely because it has a high news value.
The Informant's Initial Shield: The figure of Mr. P is intentionally disguised. The editorial pretext is usually protection so the informant avoids netizen doxing or counter-lawsuits from the suspect's side if the report is later unproven.
News Marketing Strategy: Journalism should unveil what is hidden. Yet, the use of informant initials has now shifted its function to becoming a curiosity bait (clickbait). This makes netizens continue to speculate, trying to find out which business partner or mastermind behind the scenes is capable of putting a public figure as big as Ruben Onsu behind bars.

The Dark Side of Media Information Transparency

Disclosing the names of suspects, victims, or informants is not a criminal act. There is no solid ethical justification as to why the use of initials in the reporting of this fraud case is highly selective.

The dark side we must accept is that the digital news industry heavily relies on drama.

Naming a celebrity in full brings in massive traffic. Meanwhile, hiding Mr. P's name creates a narrative of mystery. This is the perfect fuel to prolong the lifespan of the issue so it can be reproduced into dozens of daily articles.

Conclusion: Blind Journalism or Just a Click Business?

Let's face this bitter reality: the principle of fairness in reporting is often defeated by algorithms. Hiding the informant under the identity of Mr. P, while Ruben Onsu's reputation and big name are thoroughly exposed as a suspect from the very first minute, is clear proof of the media industry's hypocrisy.

Of course, Mr. P will not forever be a faceless ghost. Once this case goes to trial, the veil will surely fall, and his face will grace national television.

The question now is, amidst the destruction of a public figure's image for the sake of headlines, is our media still tasked with uncovering the truth impartially, or just producing guessing-game initial dramas for profit?

What do you think, is it fair that the informant's identity is hidden while the suspect's name is blatantly displayed? Feel free to debate and drop your conspiracy theories about who Mr. P really is in the comments section!