KPK urged to develop a comprehensive customs bribery case

The Jakarta Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) building (ANTARA photo)

JAKARTA - Indonesian Audit Watch (IAW) questions the steps of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) which is considered not to have developed the customs bribery allegations comprehensively, although the anti-corruption agency admitted that it had mapped a similar modus operandi since 2016-2020.

The Founding Secretary of IAW, Iskandar Sitorus, assessed that the KPK's recognition of the existence of "other forwarders" other than PT Blueray Cargo should be a gateway to uncovering a wider network. According to him, if the pattern has been recognized since six to ten years ago, the public is naturally questioning why the development has only emerged now.

"This has entered the realm of institutional politics and integrity tests. What is at stake is not only the fate of one or two companies, but the credibility of eradicating corruption in strategic institutions," said Iskandar, Thursday, February 19.

IAW assessed that, normatively, the KPK has a strong foundation to expand the investigation. The Corruption Crime Law and Law Number 19 of 2019 give the KPK the authority to ensnare corporations, develop cases, and coordinate across institutions.

This means, said Iskandar, if there are indications of a systemic pattern, the investigation should not stop at one entity or one set of transactions.

The IAW highlights also point to governance at the Directorate General of Customs and Excise. For more than a decade, the Financial Audit Results Report has repeatedly found weaknesses in the supervision of import channels, inconsistencies in physical inspections, weak post-clearance audits, and fragmented risk management systems.

"If the repeated administrative findings now intersect with the admission of a bribery scheme that has long been mapped, then this case has the potential to go beyond individual criminal acts," he said.

In the perspective of state administrative law, IAW considers the permissibility of a fragile system to be categorized as severe maladministration and opens up room for structural responsibility.

IAW assesses that the KPK is now at a crossroads. On one hand, the institution can resolve cases within a limited scope, namely one corporation and a number of officials. On the other hand, the KPK can expand the investigation systemically by mapping all forwarders who use similar patterns in the period 2016-2020, tracing the flow of funds across corporations, and calculating the potential state losses in aggregate.

"But that's where the institutional test lies. Is the KPK just a case manager, or do they dare to dismantle the system," he said.

IAW emphasized that public criticism of the KPK is not synonymous with weakening, but rather a form of hope that the institution remains consistent with the mandate of reform. According to Iskandar, the public needs structural changes in a transparent, accountable, and resistant to manipulation customs system.

"The direction chosen by the KPK in the next few months will determine in which category he is placed in the public," he said.