Socio Today
The legal proceedings involving prominent medical practitioner and entrepreneur Dr. Richard Lee have entered a critical phase at the Tangerang District Court, marking a significant juncture in the intersection of health regulation and consumer law in Indonesia. The trial centers on allegations of violations concerning the Health Law and Consumer Protection Law, specifically pertaining to the marketing and labeling of the supplement product, White Tomato (WT). During the most recent hearing held on Thursday, September 10, 2026, the courtroom became the stage for a rigorous technical debate between the defense team and an expert witness representing the Indonesian Food and Drug Authority (BPOM).
At the heart of the dispute is the application of Article 435 of Law No. 17 of 2023 concerning Health. The prosecution’s reliance on this criminal provision—which carries potential penalties of up to 12 years of imprisonment—has been vehemently challenged by Dr. Richard Lee’s legal counsel, Faizal Hafied. The defense contends that the issues raised regarding the product’s labeling and sticker placement are administrative in nature and fall under the purview of specific regulatory guidelines issued by the BPOM, rather than criminal statutes.
Chronology of the Case and Regulatory Friction
The case against Dr. Richard Lee is not an isolated event but rather the culmination of heightened scrutiny by regulatory bodies regarding the digital marketing of health and beauty supplements. Dr. Lee, who gained widespread public attention for his critical reviews of skincare products, has found himself on the other side of regulatory enforcement.
The investigation into the White Tomato (WT) supplement began following concerns raised by authorities regarding the labeling practices of the product. While the product itself holds a valid BPOM registration number—meaning it has passed the necessary safety and quality evaluations required for pharmaceutical distribution—the prosecution alleges that the manner in which the product was presented to the public, specifically the use of supplementary stickers or promotional labeling, violated established health regulations.
The legal defense has meticulously mapped out a timeline of regulatory compliance, arguing that since the core product was never deemed harmful or counterfeit, the sudden escalation to criminal charges is a disproportionate response. The defense argues that the regulatory framework for supplements is designed to be corrective rather than punitive in its initial stages, focusing on ensuring that consumers are accurately informed rather than criminalizing business operators for labeling discrepancies.
The Debate on Administrative vs. Criminal Liability
During the September 10 proceedings, the courtroom witnessed a high-stakes cross-examination. Faizal Hafied focused his questioning on the specific regulatory framework governing the labeling of natural medicines and health supplements. By citing BPOM Regulation Number 10 of 2024, the defense sought to establish that the specific infractions alleged by the prosecution are explicitly addressed by administrative measures.
When questioned by the defense, the BPOM expert witness acknowledged that the regulatory framework for such labeling issues primarily mandates administrative sanctions. The exchange was pivotal:
"This is Regulation Number 24 of 2023. If someone violates this regulation, what are the sanctions?" Hafied asked.
The expert witness responded unequivocally: "Administrative."
Building on this admission, the defense team dissected the hierarchy of sanctions provided under BPOM guidelines. These include a structured approach: first, a formal warning; second, product recall; and finally, the revocation of the distribution license. Hafied argued that by applying Article 435 of the Health Law—a statute often reserved for the distribution of unlicensed or dangerous pharmaceutical substances—the prosecution is misapplying the law to a situation that does not involve public health risks, but rather procedural non-compliance.
Contextualizing Indonesia’s Health Law Reform
The case is being watched closely by legal analysts and the health industry because it tests the boundaries of the newly enacted Law No. 17 of 2023 on Health. This omnibus-style health law was designed to streamline regulations but has introduced new complexities regarding how businesses, particularly those operating in the digital space, are held accountable.
Historically, the BPOM has functioned as a regulatory agency with the power to issue administrative sanctions to maintain market safety. However, the use of criminal law to address "labeling" or "promotional" inconsistencies is viewed by many industry observers as a concerning expansion of state power. If a business owner who holds a valid license for a safe product can be prosecuted under the same statutes as those distributing illegal or tainted medicine, the potential for "regulatory chilling" becomes a significant concern for the growing supplement and beauty industry in Indonesia.
The Implications for the Health Supplement Industry
The defense’s core argument is that criminal law is a last resort. They posit that because the White Tomato (WT) supplement has undergone standard quality and safety testing, the product itself is not "tainted." Therefore, any issues regarding the packaging or the promotional stickers on the bottles are matters of administrative oversight.
"The business owner who violates the provisions in Article 2 paragraph 1, Article 4, and Article 5—nearly all these articles—are subject to administrative sanctions. This is not a criminal matter!" Hafied stated firmly during the hearing.
If the court sustains the prosecution’s interpretation, it could set a precedent where any minor deviation from labeling requirements—regardless of the product’s safety—could trigger criminal prosecution. This would place a massive compliance burden on entrepreneurs and could potentially disrupt the digital health market, where products are frequently updated with new packaging and promotional materials to keep pace with consumer trends.
Analysis of the Legal Strategy
Dr. Richard Lee’s defense team is employing a strategy known as "regulatory interpretation," which focuses on the legislative intent behind the BPOM’s own guidelines. By forcing the prosecution’s expert witness to admit that the primary mechanism for dealing with labeling issues is administrative, the defense is attempting to strip the prosecution of its primary legal basis for the 12-year sentence request.
From a procedural standpoint, the trial is also highlighting the importance of the distinction between "pharmacological safety" and "regulatory compliance." In the eyes of the law, these are often treated as distinct categories. The prosecution appears to be arguing that the act of "altering" a product’s presentation constitutes a form of unauthorized distribution, while the defense argues that it is merely a matter of labeling that warrants a fine or a warning letter.
Future Outlook and Next Steps
The trial is expected to continue for several more weeks, with additional experts and witnesses scheduled to testify. The court’s eventual ruling will likely serve as a landmark decision on how Indonesia interprets the relationship between administrative regulatory compliance and the criminalization of health-related commercial activities.
For Dr. Richard Lee, the stakes remain exceptionally high. Beyond the immediate threat of imprisonment, the case carries significant implications for his brand and his ability to continue operating within the pharmaceutical and beauty sectors. The outcome will likely influence how the BPOM enforces its regulations moving forward, potentially leading to a more standardized, tiered approach to enforcement that prioritizes administrative resolution for minor infractions.
As the legal proceedings progress, the business community and the public remain focused on whether the judiciary will uphold the distinction between administrative oversight and criminal conduct. The case has become a litmus test for the balance between protecting consumer interests and maintaining a predictable, fair environment for legitimate business operations in the health sector. The next phase of the trial will involve further testimony aimed at clarifying the exact nature of the alleged label violations, with both sides preparing for a final showdown on the interpretation of the Health Law’s scope.
