The key financial crime offences are regulated in various laws or regulations as set out below:
Law Number 31 of 1999 on Eradication of the Crime of Corruption as amended by Law Number 20 of 2001 and partially revoked with Law Number 1 of 2023 on Criminal Code is the primary legislation in Indonesia dealing with corruption, bribery, conflict of interests, and gratification. Prosecution and criminal imposition may be carried out against the corporation and or its management in the event that a criminal act of corruption is committed by or on behalf of a corporation as stipulated in Article 20 Paragraph (1).
Law Number 8 of 2010 on the Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering Crime sets out offences related to money laundering. According to Article 6 Paragraph (1), “In the event that the crime of money laundering as referred to in Article 3, Article 4, and Article 5 is committed by a corporation, the sentence shall be imposed on the corporation and/or the personnel controlling the corporation”.
Law Number 28 of 2007 on Third Amendment to Law Number 6 of 1983 on General Provisions and Procedures of Tax as amended by Law Number 16 of 2009. One example of tax evasion that is often found is taxpayers who do not report part or all of their income in their annual tax return, charge expenses that should not be used as a deduction in income with the aim of minimising the tax burden, as well as increasing costs in a fictitious way.
Law Number 5 of 1999 on Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition as amended by Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 2 of 2022 concerning Job Creation and as stipulated by Law Number 6 of 2023 concerning Stipulation of Government Regulation in Liew of Law Number 2 of 2022 concerning Job Creation to be Enacted as Law (“Job Creation Law”) is the primary legislation in Indonesia dealing with monopoly, price fixing, cartel, dominant position and other unfair business competition practices. The criminal sanctions regulated in Article 48 of this law may be imposed on business actors including individuals or entities.
Yes, although corporate liability is not specifically regulated under Indonesia’s criminal law system. For example, environmental offences as regulated in Article 118 Law Number 32 of 2009 on Environmental Protection and Management as amended by Law Number 6 of 2023 on Job Creation. Arrangements regarding corporate criminal liability in Indonesia are currently regulated in Law Number 1 of 2023 on Criminal Code that will take effect from January 2, 2026.
Corporations will be held criminally liable in Indonesia according to Article 45 Paragraph (1) Law Number 1 of 2023 on Criminal Code: “Corporations are the subject of Crimes”. Determination of corporate criminal liability is governed by Article 46 Law Number 1 of 2023 on Criminal Code: “Crime by Corporations are Crimes committed by management who have functional positions within the Corporation’s organizational structure or persons who, based on work relationships or based on other relationships, acting for and on behalf of the Corporations or acting in the interests of the Corporations, within the scope of said Corporations’ business or activities, either individually or collectively”.
According to Article 4 Paragraph (2) Regulation of The Supreme Court Number 13 of 2016 on Procedures to Settle Criminal Acts Committed by Corporations, “In imposing criminal penalties on Corporations, Judge may assess the Corporation’s mistakes as referred to in paragraph (1) as follows:
a. Corporations may gain profits or benefits from the criminal activity, or the crime is committed for the benefit of the Corporation;
b. Corporations allow criminal acts to occur; or
c. Corporations do not take the necessary steps to prevent, prevent a greater impact and ensure compliance with applicable legal provisions in order to prevent criminal acts from occurring”.
Company directors and officers in Indonesia are often prosecuted for corruption, money laundering, embezzlement, fraud, as well as tax offences.
In Indonesia, the authority to investigate and prosecute financial crime in general is organised separately. The authority to investigate belongs to an investigator as stipulated in Article 6 Paragraph (1) Law Number 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure, which is “an official of the state police of the Republic Indonesia (“police officials”) or a certain official of the civil service who is granted special authority by law”. To be specific, the Directorate of Economic and Special Crimes is the specific police officials that deal with financial crimes. The authority to prosecute belongs to the public prosecutor as stipulated in Article 13 Law Number 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure, “A public prosecutor shall be a public attorney who is granted the authority by this law to conduct a prosecution and execute the rulings of a judge”. This is similar to most jurisdictions.
Police have the authority to conduct investigations and have responsibilities as stipulated in Article 7 Paragraph (1) Law Number 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure, which are:
a. to accept a report or complaint from a person about the presence of a criminal act;
b. to take the first steps at the place of occurrence;
c. to order a suspect to stop and examine his identification card;
d. to carry out arrest, detention, search and seizure;
e. to examine and confiscate letters;
f. to take the fingerprints and a photograph of a person;
g. to summon a person to be heard or examined as suspect or witness;
h. to call in a needed expert in connection with the examination of a case;
i. to put an end to an investigation;
j. to take other responsible legal measures.
Public prosecutors have the authority to prosecute and have responsibilities as stipulated in Article 14 Law Number 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure, which are:
a. to accept and examine the dossier of a case under investigation submitted by an investigator or an assistant investigator;
b. to conduct pre-prosecution if there are shortcomings in the investigation with due regard to Article 110 Paragraph (3) and Paragraph (4), by giving instructions to the investigator on ways to improve his investigation;
c. to grant an extension of detention, to carry out a detention or a further detention and/or to change the status of a detainee after his case has been turned over to him by investigator;
d. to prepare bills of indictment;
e. to bring actions before the court;
f. to give notification to the accused of the day and time the case will be tried accompanied by summonses, both to the accused and to the witnesses, to appear at the designated trial session;
g. to conduct a prosecution;
h. to close a case in the interest of law;
i. to take other acts within the scope of his duties and responsibilities as a public prosecutor according to the provisions of this law;
j. to execute rulings of a judge.
In addition to the police and prosecutors, Indonesia established a Corruption Eradication Commission which has the authority to investigate and prosecute corruption crimes specifically (Article 6 letter e Law Number 19 of 2019) with provisions as stipulated in Article 11 Law Number 19 of 2019, namely involving law enforcement officials, state administrators, and other people who have something to do with corruption crimes committed by these parties and/or involving losses to the country of at least Rp1.000.000.000,00 (one billion rupiah). In the event that the criminal act of corruption does not meet these provisions, the Corruption Eradication Commission must hand over the authority of investigation and prosecution to the regular police and/or prosecutor’s office.
Another institution authorised to investigate financial crimes specific to banking crimes in Indonesia is the Financial Services Authority. Investigation is one of the supervisory duties of Financial Service Institutions, perpetrators, and/or supporting financial services activities as stipulated in Article 9 letter c of Law Number 21 of 2011 on the Financial Services Authority as amended by Law Number 9 of 2016 on Prevention and Handling of Financial System Crisis.
Financial crime cases in Indonesia are heard by the District Court which is included in the general judiciary. According to Article 50 Law Number 2 of 1986 on General Judiciary as amended by Law Number 49 of 2009 on Second Amendment to Law Number 2 of 1986 on General Judiciary, “District Court has the duties and the authorities to examine, decide, and settle criminal and civil cases on the first level”. The jury trial is not used in the Indonesian criminal justice system but as stipulated in Article 94 Paragraph (1) of Law Number 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure Code, “Where a criminal case intended by Article 89 par (1) is adjudicated by a court within the public judicial system or within the military judicial system, the case shall be adjudicated by a panel of judges consisting of at least three judges”.
Investigation procedure in Indonesia consists of two stages: preliminary investigations and investigations which are stipulated in Article 1 number 2 and Article 1 number 5 Law Number 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure.
Article 1 number 2
“Investigation is a series of acts by an investigator in the matter and by means regulated in this law to seek and gather evidence with which to clarify whether an offense has occurred and to locate the suspect”.
Article 1 number 5
“Preliminary investigation is a series of acts by a junior investigator to investigate and to examine an event that is presumed to be an offense in order to determine whether or not an investigation may be carried out by means regulated in this law”.
The authorities may initiate investigation in the manner stipulated in Article 102 Paragraph (1) Law Number 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure, “A junior investigator who is aware, receives a report or a complaint concerning the occurrence of an event that may reasonably be presumed to be an offense, shall be obligated to promptly take the necessary steps for a preliminary investigation”.
Based on these matters, the authorities may carry out actions of arrest, detention, body search, home entry, confiscation, and examination of letters for the purposes of investigation according to Article 16 Paragraph (1), Article 20 Paragraph (1), Article 32, Article 38 Paragraph (1) Article 47 Paragraph (1) Law Number 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure.1
1 Law Number 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure.
The powers possessed by the authorities in conducting interviews are included in the investigative authority in accordance with Article 7 Paragraph (1) letter g Law Number 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure Code, “to summon a person to be heard and examined as a suspect or a witness”.
An Interviewee suspect has the following rights during the interview process as provided in Law 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code:
Article 51 letter a
“A suspect shall have the right to be clearly informed in language which he understands about what he is suspected of at the time an examination begins”.
Elucidation of Article 51 letter a
“By having the person suspected of having committed a crime informed and made to understand what he has been suspected of, he will feel his interest in making preparations for a defense is guaranteed. Consequently, he will know the seriousness of the suspicion against him so that he may thereafter be able to consider the level or kind of defense needed, for instance whether or not he will seek legal assistance for the defense”.
“In examinations at the stages of investigation and trial, a suspect or an accused shall have the right to freely give information to an investigator or judge”. Therefore, there is no expressed right to remain silent under Indonesian Law. The law is also silent on the issue of the right against self-incrimination.
“In examinations at the stages of investigation and trial, a suspect or an accused shall have the right at any time to have the assistance of an interpreter as intended by Article 177.
“For purposes of defense, a suspect or an accused shall have the right to obtain legal assistance from one or more legal counsels during the period of and at every stage of examination; according to the procedures stipulated by this law”.
“In order to obtain the legal counsel referred to in Article 54, a suspect or an accused shall have the right to make his own choice of legal counsel”.
“A suspect or an accused shall not bear the burden of proof”.
“A suspect or an accused shall have the right to appeal against a judgment of a court of first instance except against a judgment of acquittal, a dismissal of all charges which relates to a matter of the inappropriate application of law and a judgment under express procedure”.
“A suspect or an accused shall have the right to claim compensation and rehabilitation as governed by Article 95 and so forth”.
Article 95 Paragraph (1)
“A suspect, an accused or a convicted person shall have the right to demand compensation for the harm of having been arrested, detained, prosecuted and adjudicated or subjected to other acts, without reason founded on law or due to a mistake with regard to his identity or to the applicable law”.
Indonesian law does not expressly recognize the right to remain silent nor the right against self- discrimination as understood in some jurisdictions.
Indonesian laws or regulations governing financial crimes generally do not have extraterritorial effects, but for criminal acts of corruption and money laundering, every person outside the territory of the Republic of Indonesia who participates in carrying out experiments, assistance, conspiracy, providing opportunities, means or information to commit the criminal act is punished with the same crime as the perpetrator of the criminal act as regulated in Article 16 Law Number 31 of 1999 on Eradication of the Crime of Corruption as amended by Law Number 20 of 2001 and partially revoked with Law Number 1 of 2023 on Criminal Code and Article 10 of Law Number 8 of 2010 on the Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering Crime. Besides that, the application of extraterritorial principles has occurred in business competition cases handled by Indonesia Competition Supervisory Commission (“KPPU”), particularly Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC) Case through Decision No. 07/KPPU-L/2004 and the Temasek Case through Decision No. 07/KPPU-L/2007.
Yes, Indonesian authorities commonly cooperate with foreign authorities in transnational crimes, for instance in trafficking crimes (narcotics trafficking, human trafficking, firearm trafficking), high-tech crimes (piracy, data breaches, identity theft), and financial crimes (corruption, money laundering and bulk-cash smuggling). Indonesia plays an active role in international and regional forums, establish cooperation agreements in handling transnational crimes with other countries both bilaterally and multilaterally, as well as with international law enforcement institutions to tackle transnational crimes.2 Several international collaborations particularly in tackling financial crimes that have been carried out by Indonesia are as follows: AUSTRAC, Egmont Group on Money Laundering and Asia Pacific Group on Money Laundering. Aside that, Indonesia has ratified several agreements as follows:
(a) United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) through Law Number 7 of 2006;
(b) Single Convention on Narcotics Drugs 1961 through Law Number 8 of 1976;
(c) Convention on Psychotropic Substances 1971 through Law Number 8 of 1996;
(d) Convention against the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances 1988 through Law Number 7 of 1997.
As a legal professional, advocates have privileges i.e. may not be sued through civil or criminal channels when carry out duties to defend the needs of clients in good faith both in the trial process which is called the right of immunity and contained in the provisions of Article 16 Law Number 18 of 2003 on Advocates. The rules for client confidential obligations that must be maintained by advocates are contained in Article 19 of the Advocates Law which stipulates that:
1. The advocate shall keep confidential everything known or obtained from his client because of his professional relationship, unless provided by law.
2. The advocate has the right to confidentiality of his relationship with the client, including protection of his files and documents against seizure or inspection and protection against interception of the Advocate’s electronic communications.
This privilege is invalidated if the advocate makes any effort to protect communication and information with the aim of obstructing investigations. An example of a case regarding communication between an advocate and a client which was not in good faith and was proven to be “together intentionally preventing, obstructing or thwarting directly or indirectly the investigation of the suspect in a corruption case”, as regulated and punishable by crime in Article 21 of the Law Number 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes as amended by Law Number 20 of 2001 in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph (1) 1 of the Criminal Code based on Supreme Court Decision Number 3315 K/Pid.Sus/2018 which was decided at the cassation level of defendant Fredrich Yunadi as Setya Novanto’s attorney in the Electronic National Identity Card corruption case.
Whilst there are privacy and data protection laws in Indonesia, the collection, processing, use and disclosure of personal information and data is generally permitted if it is necessary for investigations or proceedings.
One example is the waiver of the bank’s obligation to keep customer data secret. This data, including client’s deposits may be required by investigators in criminal cases and Article 2 paragraph (4) of Bank Indonesia Regulation Number 2 of 2000 requires Banks to comply to provide personal data for the benefit of law enforcement processes as stipulated in Article 15 paragraph (1) of Law Number 27 of 2022 on Personal Data Protection.
The doctrine of successor criminal liability, especially in mergers in Indonesia, is indirectly contained in Article 7 paragraph (1) of Regulation of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 13 of 2016 on Procedures to Settle Criminal Acts Committed by Corporations which states that: “In the event of merger or consolidation of Corporations then the criminal liability shall be imposed only to the value of property or assets placed upon the Corporations that accept the merger or Corporations resulting from the consolidation”.
Factors that may be considered by the public prosecutor in determining criminal charges against the perpetrators of criminal acts generally include the actions of the perpetrators of the crimes themselves. In general, there are guidelines for criminal prosecution covering all criminal cases and these are found in the Circular Letter of the Attorney General Number: SE-009/JA/12/1985 as amended by Circular Letter of the Attorney General Number: 001/JA/4/1995 on Guidelines for General Criminal Prosecution and Special Crimes, and states as follows:
a. If the factors aggravating the crime are more dominant, then the guideline for criminal prosecution used are the maximum threat of corporal punishment as stipulated in the article of the law concerned.
b. If mitigating factors are more dominant, then the Courts take these factors into consideration. There is little other hard law and this is completed by a scarcity of case reporting and the absence of the doctrine of stare decisis.
The evidential standard to secure conviction is stipulated in Article 183-184 Number 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure Code as follows:
“A judge shall not impose a penalty upon a person except when with at least two valid evidences he has come to the conviction that an offense has truly occurred and that it is the accused who is guilty of committing it”.
“Valid evidence shall be:
1. the testimony of a witness;
2. Matters that are generally known need not to be proven”.
However, the judge is not solely bound by valid evidence but must also be bound by his own conviction of the defendant’s guilt (beyond reasonable doubt).
There is a statute of limitations for criminal matters regulated in Law Number 1 of 1946 on Criminal Code as amended by Law Number 1 of 2023 on Criminal Code that will take effect starting from January 2, 2026. Indonesian law distinguishes between an expiration for prosecuting an offence and the expiration for carrying out a criminal sentence.
The expiration of the right to Prosecute
Article 78 Law Number 1 of 1946 on Criminal Code provides that:
“The authority to prosecute criminals is removed after the expiration:
1. Against all offences and crimes committed by printing, after 1 year;
2. For crimes punishable by fines or imprisonment for a maximum of 3 years, after 6 years;
3. For crimes punishable by imprisonment for more than 3 years, after 12 years; for crimes punishable by death or life imprisonment, after 18 years.”.
Article 136 Law Number 1 of 2023 on Criminal Code:
“ The Prosecution authority shall have no authority to Prosecute if:
a. after exceeding the period of 3 years for a criminal offense is punishable with imprisonment for a maximum of 1 year and/or only a maximum fine of category III;
b. after exceeding the period of 6 years for a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than 1 year and a maximum of 3 years;
c. after exceeding the period of 12 years for a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than 3 years and a maximum of 7 years;
d. after exceeding the time of 18 years for a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than 7 years and a maximum of 15 years; and
e. after exceeding the period of 20 years for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a maximum of 20 years, life imprisonment, or the death penalty.
Provisions for Executing Criminal Penalties
Article 84 Paragraph (2) Law Number 1 of 1946 on Criminal Code:
The grace period for all offences shall be two years, on crimes committed by printing shall be five years, and on other offences shall be the same as the grace period for criminal prosecution, plus one-third.
Article 142 Law Number 1 of 2023 on Criminal Code:
1. The criminal execution authority shall expire after a grace period equal to the expiration period of the prosecution authority referred to in Article 136 plus 1/3 (one third).
2. The grace period for the expiration of the criminal must exceed the length of the sentence imposed except for life imprisonment.
3. The execution of the death penalty does not have an expiration period,
4. If the death penalty is commuted to life imprisonment as referred to in Article 101, the authority to execute the penalty shall expire after the expiration period of the expiration date of the prosecuting authority referred to in Article 136 paragraph (1) point e plus 1/3 (one-third) of the expiration period.
n Indonesia, The Public Prosecution Service has authority based on the principle of opportunity as stipulated in Article 35 of Law Number 16 of 2004 on the Public Prosecution Service. In the formulation of Article 35 paragraph (1) letter k of Law Number 11 of 2021 on Amendments to Law Number 16 of 2004 on the Public Prosecution Service, regulates amicable fines, which may be stated more clearly as “The Attorney General has the duties and powers: k. dealing with criminal acts that cause losses to the state economy and may use peace fines in economic crimes based on statutory regulations”. As for the Elucidation of Article 35 paragraph (1) letter k, “amicable fine” is the termination of a case out of court by paying a fine approved by the Attorney General. The implementation of amicable fines for financial crimes is one form of application of the opportunity principle that the Attorney General has in carrying out prosecutions of financial crimes based on the law.
There are no existing laws or regulations governing plea bargaining and its mechanism. The plea-bargaining mechanism is currently only contained in the draft amendment to the Law on Criminal Procedure which is titled a special pathway in the settlement of criminal cases.
The benefits of voluntary disclosure, for example in taxation, include being free from administrative sanctions and data to continue to receive protection, and not used in investigations, and the prosecution of taxpayers. Any disclosed asset data may not be used as a basis for investigation, investigation and/or criminal prosecution of taxpayers.
There are no specific rules or guidelines for determining sentences, but there is a rule issued by the Supreme Court namely Regulation of The Supreme Court Number 1 of 2020 on Guidelines for Sentencing Article 2 and Article 3 Law Number 31 of 1999 on Eradication of the Crime of Corruption as amended by Law Number 20 of 2001 and partially revoked with Law Number 1 of 2023 on Criminal Code.
According to Article 5 paragraph (1), “In determining the severity of the sentence, the Judge must consider sequentially the following stages:
a. category of state financial loss or state economy;
b. error rate, impact, and profit;
c. range of criminal convictions;
d. aggravating and mitigating circumstances;
e. criminal imposition; and
f. other provisions relating to the imposition of a sentence”.
There is no specific hard law on this although persuasive Counsel could certainly argue robust compliance procedures in avoiding prosecution, and/ or mitigating sentencing. Effective compliance processes and strong corporate governance are fundamental methods that companies may employ to safeguard themselves from violating any particular regulatory framework. The mandatory audit mandated by Law Number 40 of 2007 on Limited Liability Company as amended by Job Creation Law is that as a minimum, financial statements of a limited liability company must be audited by a public accountant registered in Indonesia. This is especially so for:
a. Companies with assets exceeding 50 billion rupiah (US$3.6 million)
b. Public companies
c. Companies that issue debt instruments;
d. The company is a state-owned enterprise; or
e. The company collects or manages public funds (such as banks and insurance companies).
Individuals that are convicted of the key offences listed at Q1, will commonly face imprisonment and/or fines. In the case of corporate entities convicted of the key offences mentioned at Q1, fines are the common penalty imposed.
The maximum penalty for this offence according to Law Number 31 of 1999 on Eradication of the Crime of Corruption as amended by Law Number 20 of 2001 and partially revoked with Law Number 1 of 2023 on Criminal Code is life imprisonment and a maximum fine of one billion rupiah.
The maximum penalty for this offence as regulated in Law Number 8 of 2010, for an individual is imprisonment for a maximum of twenty years and a fine of up to Rp10.000.000.000,00 (ten billion rupiah) while the main penalty imposed on the Corporation is a maximum fine of Rp100,000,000,000.00 (one hundred billion rupiah).
The maximum sentence regulated in Law Number 28 of 2007, is a maximum imprisonment of 1 (one) year or a maximum fine of Rp1.000.000.000.00 (one billion rupiah).
Violation of the provisions in Law Number 5 of 1999 as amended by Job Creation Law is punishable by a maximum fine of Rp5,000,000,000.00 (five billion rupiah), or imprisonment in lieu of a fine for a maximum of 1 (one) year.
There is no concept of stare decisis in Indonesia. It is therefore difficult to give a range of sentences for each type of criminal offence.
It is possible to appeal the judgment of a first instance court (unless the appeal is for a judgment of acquittal, a dismissal of all charges relating to inappropriate application of law, or reversal of a judgment made under express procedures) according to Article 67 Law Number 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure. It is also possible to request cassation from a Supreme Court, in which the Supreme Court’s decision will be final and binding. A reconsideration of judgment may be filed against a final and binding decision. Public prosecutors may also submit a petition for cassation in the interest of law with respect to all judgments that have become final and binding to the Supreme Court.
In recent years, the Corruption Eradication Commission has been active in investigating and prosecuting corruption, particularly state officials such as ministers and heads of institutions. Based on data from Indonesian Corruption Watch, there have been 579 corruption cases that have been prosecuted in Indonesia throughout 2022. This number has increased by 8.63% compared to the previous year of 533 cases.
We have seen trends in corruption involving state officials such as the most recent case against the Minister of Communication and Informatics, according to The Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (BPKP) said that state losses from this case amounted to more than IDR 8 trillion. The losses start from the preparation of legal studies, markup prices, and payments for base stations that have not been built.
We have also in recent years money laundering cases particularly assisted trading robot in a ponzi scheme, with total assets confiscated in the latest case amounting to 450 billion rupiah, with an estimated 1500 victims in this case.
The Commissioner of PT Hanson International Tbk, Benny Tjokrosaputro, was found guilty and given a nil sentence and additional penalty of paying compensation for state losses amounting to IDR 5.73 trillion. This was because he had previously been a convict in the Jiwasraya case who had been sentenced to life imprisonment. Benny was found guilty of committing a criminal act of corruption and money laundering in the PT ASABRI scandal which cost the state up to IDR 22.7 trillion. He violated Article 2 paragraph (1) in conjunction with Article 18 of Law Number 31 of 1999 on Eradication of the Crime of Corruption as amended by Law Number 20 of 2001 and partially revoked with Law Number 1 of 2023 on Criminal Code.
This case become one of notable financial crime cases in Indonesia because of the amount of state financial losses which then attracted public attention for its nil verdict. The panel of judges also did not grant the prosecutor’s demand for the death penalty because there were differences between the indictment and the prosecution. The panel of judges also considered that conditions, such as corruption carried out using natural disaster relief funds, during a financial crisis, or acts of corruption carried out repeatedly as a condition for the imposition of a crime could not be proven by the prosecutor and Benny’s acts of corruption in Jiwasraya, then in ASABRI, were not repeated, but concurus realis or combining acts of corruption carried out at the same time.
There are planned developments to legal, regulatory and/or enforcement framework in Indonesia in accordance with one of the pillars of Indonesia’s Development Plan 2045, namely Strengthening National Resilience and Governance, one of which consists of strengthening the national legal system and anti-corruption.
Areas for improvement remain regulating and monitoring all activities in the financial services sector as is the duty and function of the Indonesian Financial Services Authority in relation to the development of new modes or ways of committing financial crimes, particularly using digital technology as a means.
For further information, please contact:
P: 6221. 7278 7678, 72795001
H: +62 811 8800 427
Yoga Adi Nugraha
Managing Associate Practice Group White Collar Crime and Investigation