[Exclusive] Mrs. Devi Generally Admits to the Charges, but Victims Are Angry Over “No Apology” and “No Settlement Offer”

“What a money-maker!”

The first hearing for two assault cases involving defendant Devi Sukarno (86), known as “Mrs. Devi”—first reported by FRIDAY Digital—was held on June 23 at the Tokyo District Court.

According to the indictment, in February 2025, at a restaurant in Shibuya Ward, Tokyo, the defendant Devi is alleged to have thrown chopsticks and a champagne glass at Victim A, a woman employed at her private office.FRIDAY Digital was quick to pick up on this information and, on March 22 of last year, reported—along with an on-the-spot interview—that Devi had undergone a five-hour interrogation at the Shibuya Police Station.

Defendant Devi was also involved in an incident late on October 28, ’25, at a veterinary clinic in Shibuya Ward, where she assaulted another victim, Woman B, by punching her in the chest and abdomen; FRIDAY Digital has also reported on this incident independently.

A person who was present at the veterinary clinic at the time told FRIDAY Digital:

“There was a woman in the clinic lobby shouting loudly, as if she were giving a speech. When I looked closely, I was surprised to see it was Mrs. Devi. She was wearing a chic purple two-piece outfit, but perhaps because she was thrashing about and stomping her feet violently, the heel of her high-heeled shoe had already broken.Several hospital staff members and her two managers tried to stop her, but she became even more agitated and started yelling at the hospital, shouting things like, ‘You money-grabbers!’ and ‘You killed my dog!’”

This was the first court hearing for defendant Devi, who was charged with assaulting two female employees. She lacked the boldness she displays on TV, and a TV network representative who observed the proceedings said, “She appeared to be very nervous.”

“Mrs. Devi appeared in court wearing a black dress, pearl earrings, and a diamond necklace; she looked very elegant. At the start of the trial, she had to state her name and date of birth, but her voice was so faint—a stark contrast to how she appears on TV.”

During the trial, Devi’s defense attorney stated , “While there are some vague points in her memory, she does not intend to actively deny the charges, ” effectively acknowledging the charges in general.

She has absolutely no intention of apologizing…

Although defendant Devi appeared subdued in court, she updated her social media on the night of the trial. She posted the following explanation for why she assaulted Victim A:

“Suddenly, she said, ‘I’m not against dog meat, you know~,’ and I lost my temper, reflexively throwing a wet towel and some chopsticks that were nearby. I regret that I acted immaturely.”

This statement suggests that Victim A provoked Defendant Devi, who has long opposed the consumption of dog meat. She further argued:

〈However, I have absolutely no memory of throwing anything dangerous, such as a champagne glass.〉

Mrs. Devi assaulted Victim B after saying goodbye to her beloved dog at the veterinary clinic, and she posted the following regarding the circumstances at that time:

〈Just as I was about to ask the young attending veterinarian, “Is this life-prolonging treatment?”, my former manager—who shouldn’t have been there—put me in a bear hug. I simply shook off his arm.〉 “Contrary to what’s been reported, I did not punch or kick anyone at all.”

“She said that, somehow, by piling up little lies in court, Mrs. Devi ended up looking pitiful,”

This lament comes from a friend of Victim B.

“Even though Mrs. Devi largely admitted to the crimes in court, she didn’t utter a single word of apology.Ms. B was in the gallery, and rather than being angry, she was just dumbfounded. Moreover, the only thing that could be considered an apology in court was her remark, ‘I’m sorry to have let down dog and cat lovers, who see me as a beacon of hope.’ Apparently, she only apologized to dog and cat lovers—not to the victim. I suppose she has no intention of bowing her head to the victim.”

At the first hearing, the judge asked her, “Why haven’t you apologized?” to which Defendant Devi replied:

“I haven’t apologized because I wasn’t asked to.”

Although she refused to apologize, there was reportedly an offer to settle out of court. However, Victim B is said to be outraged by the way it was handled.

“Apparently, about three weeks before the indictment, a settlement agreement was sent by Mrs. Devi’s lawyer. It contained absolutely no words of apology, and moreover, the amount for the settlement was left blank. No apology, no settlement money—is that supposed to mean ‘settle this’?　What’s more, even though no amount was listed, they reportedly demanded that the police report be withdrawn immediately once the payment was made. Is there anything more disrespectful than that?　

Ms. B isn’t after the money. She’s simply waiting for a sincere apology from Mrs. Devi. Ms. B reportedly sent a message to the lawyer saying, ‘I’d like to hear Mrs. Devi’s thoughts on this,’ but was just brushed off. ‘She has absolutely no intention of apologizing,’ Ms. B said, at a loss for words.” (A friend of the victim, Ms. B)

I wonder what kind of evidence the prosecution will present at the next hearing—