Monthly Archives: February 2012

ICW Annual Corruption Monitoring Report for 2011

ICW released its annual corruption monitoring report two weeks back.  The report includes data on actors, sectors, the modus operandi, the institution or agency involved, location, the legal response, and makes recommendations.  Overall they identified 436 corruption cases involving 1,053 suspects.  The estimated state losses totalled Rp. 2.2 Trillion or approximately $245 million.  Suspects were most commonly civil servants, contractors or regional parliamentarians.  The highest numbers of cases were in the education and regional finance sectors; whereas the highest total state losses were in the government investment (presumably infrastructure) and regional finance sectors.

Here’s the presentation summarizing the report:

The report mostly uses national and local newspapers sources to track cases and their outcomes as well data from KPK, the Police and State Prosecutor’s Office.  This is done through a network of local anti-corruption NGOs to collate newspaper.  I’m only familiar with KP2KKN’s media archive for Central Java which is excellent for the past 3-4 years.  I too am using local newspapers to build a database of local corruption cases from 2000 until 2010 for two provinces–East Java and North Sumatra–which I hope to make publicly available when the cleaning is complete.

Thanks to Adnan for sending me the report.  ICW’s website is: www.antikorupsi.org

Advertisements
Tagged

Further Statements of Democrat Congress Cash

The Secretary of the Party Democrat’s Regional Leadership Council, Dani Sriyanto, was quoted in Suara Merdeka last week stating that he immediately returned the envelop containing $10,000 to those seeking his support for Anas Urbaningrum’s election at the PD’s 2010 Congress in Bandung (article here).

Secretary of the Democratic Party DPD for Central Java, Dani Sriyanto, admitted immediately returning two envelopes containing 10,000 U.S. dollars. Because he was committed to supporting Marzuki Alie in the second round and did want his decision changed by money politics.

“I immediately returned the money to the person who handed it to me. I cannot mention his or her name. However, I have given the name of the person to the Commission for the Democrat Party,” Dani said after an examination conducted at Menara Sudirman, Jakarta, Wednesday (22/2).

In fact, Dani, who at the that time served as Acting Chairman of the Party’s Leadership Council for Sukoharjo, did not have time to open the envelope. Because he immediately rejected it. In fact, the envoy said the amount of money in the envelope was U.S. $ 10,000.

Sekretaris DPD Partai Demokrat Jawa Tengah Dani Sriyanto mengaku langsung mengembalikan dua buah amplop berisi uang sebanyak 10.000 dolar AS. Sebab, dia sudah berkomitmen dan tidak ingin dukungan kepada Marzuki Alie pada putaran kedua terpecah akibat politik uang.

“Saya langsung mengembalikan uang tersebut kepada orang yang menyerahkannya kepada saya. Saya tidak bisa menyebutkan siapa namanya. Namun, nama orang itu sudah saya sampaikan kepada Komisi Pengawas PD,” ungkap Dani usai pemeriksaan yang dilakukan di Menara Sudirman, Jakarta, Rabu (22/2).

Bahkan, Dani yang saat itu menjabat sebagai Plt ketua DPC PD Sukoharjo mengaku tidak sempat membuka amplopnya. Sebab, dia langsung menolaknya. Padahal, utusan itu mengatakan jumlah uang dalam amplop adalah 10.000 dolar AS.

 

He is probably more senior than Diana Maringka–who was one of the first to speak of the payments in public–and suggests that some in the party are not abiding by T B Silahahi’s call to keep the issue within the party (see previous post here).  Dani Sriyanto supported Andi Mallarangeng in the first round and Marzuki Alie in the second round.

h/t KP2KKN’s media blog, here.

Tagged , , ,

New Article on Judicial Corruption in China

Another interesting article on corruption in China, this one focusing on bribery in the courts.   Here’s the abstract:

Despite its rampant presence, judicial corruption in China has often been regarded as the idiosyncratically deviant behavior of a few black sheep eluding prescribed judicial conduct. This entrenched assumption has both discouraged in-depth investigation of the phenomenon of judicial corruption and inhibited proper understanding of the functioning of China’s courts. This article, based on an empirically grounded examination of the processing of court rulings tainted by corruption, showed that judicial corruption in China is an institutionalized activity systemically inherent in the particular decision-making mechanism guided by the Chinese Communist Party’s instrumental rule-by-law ideal. In investigating what has contributed to the institutionalization of judicial corruption, the interplay between law and party politics in China’s courts was also examined. The findings, therefore, also shed light on behind-the-courtroom judicial activities and on the enduring perplexity of the gap between the law in the book and the law in action.

The primary source of data is media reports on 388 cases report in Chinese media between 2005 and 2008 as archived on internet news portals.  I too am using local newspapers to build a database of corruption incidents in Indonesia, but I would have thought that this data source would have been much more problematic in a country such as China than Indonesia.  Of course a more thorough reading of the article is warranted.

The author, Ling Li, is a senior research fellow at the US-Asia Law Institute at New York University.  Here’s a link to the article on Law and Social Inquiry’s website (subscription required) and below is the complete citation.

Ling Li, “The ‘Production’ of Corruption in China’s Courts: Judicial Politics and Decision Making in a One‐Party State,” Law & Social Inquiry (2012),

Tagged

Former Democrat Bupati Sentenced Five Years for Corruption

This is an interesting case.  I don’t know the details but my working theory of corruption prosecutions in Indonesia would predict that a defendant of this political background would avoid prosecution.  Not only is he from the ruling party but he was at the time of the corruption and the initial investigation the Head of the Democrat Party’s Regional Leadership Council for Bengkulu province.  This from Kompas.com (here):

The judges of the Jakarta Corruption Court declared non-active Bupati of Seluma, Bengkulu, Murman Effendi, guilty of corruption. Murman, who is a former chairman of the Democratic Party Regional Leadership Council (DPD) for Bengkulu, was jailed for two years plus a fine of Rp 100 million subsidiary of six months in prison.

Murman provided bribes to 24 legislators in two stages; at a meeting at his official residence in Duren Tiga Road, South Jakarta, and at Hotel Idol, Pramuka Road, via a close friend named Ali Amra Murman.

The funds were provided to the of 27 legislators in the form of a cheque drawn on the Seluma branch of Bank Central Asia worth Rp. 100 million ($11,000) and cash between Rp. 1 million to Rp 1.5 million ($110-160).  In addition, Murman also appointed his family-owned company, PT Puguk Saksi Permai, as the contractor for the road construction project.

“The winner of the tender PT PSP is actually a company owned by the defendant’s family, the crime committed was a crime of corruption, including white collar crime, with hidden guile to gain personal wealth,” said judge Mien Trisnawati.

Majelis hakim Pengadilan Tindak Pidana Korupsi, Jakarta menyatakan Bupati Seluma, Bengkulu nonaktif, Murman Effendi bersalah melakukan tindak pidana korupsi. Murman yang juga mantan ketua Dewan Pimpinan Daerah (DPD) Bengkulu Partai Demokrat itu dijatuhi hukuman penjara selama dua tahun ditambah denda Rp 100 juta subsider enam bulan kurungan.

Adapun pemberian uang kepada 24 anggota DPRD itu dilakukan Murman dalam dua tahap, yaitu dalam pertemuan di rumah dinas Murman di Jalan Duren Tiga, Jakarta Selatan, dan di Hotel Idola, Jalan Pramuka, melalui teman dekat Murman bernama Ali Amra.

Pemberian terhadap 27 anggota DPRD Seluma itu berupa cek Bank Central Asia cabang Seluma senilai Rp 100 juta dan uang tunai Rp 1 juta sampai Rp 1,5 juta. Selain itu, Murman juga menunjuk perusahaan milik keluarganya, PT Puguk Saksi Permai sebagai pelaksana proyek pembangunan jalan tersebut.

“Pemenang tender adalah PT PSP yang notabene adalah perusahaan milik keluarga terdakwa, tindak pidana yang dilakukan adalah kejahatan korupsi, termasuk kejahatan kerah putih, dengan akal bulus terselubung untuk mendapatkan kekayaan, keuntungan pribadi,” kata hakim Mien Trisnawati.

Of course in the end he was prosecuted by KPK in the Jakarta Corruption Court.  I don’t believe this case would have proceeded in the standard criminal justice system.

h/t KP2KKN’s media archive blog, here.

Tagged ,

Lawyers and Politicians Compete for Red Ferraris?

On Wednesday in the corruption trial of Nazzarudin, the former Democrat Party Treasurer, defence lawyer Hotman Paris Hutapea questioned Youth and Sports Minister, Andi Mallarangeng, about his brother’s purchase of a red Ferrari for Rp. 6 billion ($700,000) that Hotman himself had been competing to buy.  Here’s the Jakarta Globe (link):

The brother of Youth and Sports Affairs Minister Andi Mallarangeng may have used bribe money to buy a red Ferrari, a Jakarta court heard on Wednesday.

Lawyer Hotman Paris Hutapea, representing Muhammad Nazaruddin at the former Democratic Party treasurer’s trial in the Jakarta Anti-Corruption Court, raised the suspicion before Andi took to the witness stand.

Hotman said that he and Andi’s younger brother Zulkarnain Mallarangeng, also known as Choel, were competing to buy a Rp 6 billion ($666,000) Ferrari at a showroom in Pondok Indah, South Jakarta.

I lost to him because he brought Rp 6 billion in cash to the showroom to buy the car. It should have been mine,” Hotman told the hearing before grilling the minister.

He said he had to wait for two months before being able to buy the same model of car from the showroom.

Hotman said that Choel’s purchase of the car took place just after he allegedly received Rp 10 billion in bribes from Mindo Rosalina Manulang, a former member of Nazaruddin’s staff, in 2010.

It’s seems quite extraordinary that the defence lawyer would bring up his own capacity to purchase a Ferrari in a corruption trail.  It shows just how influential high-profile lawyers are in Indonesia’s new democracy.  To me it also illustrates the competition between legal and political power.

h/t Reformasi Weekly Review, see here.

Tagged , , , , ,

The 8 Points Removed from the Judicial Code of Conduct

A few days ago I noted that the Supreme Court had determined to remove 8 points from the Ethics Code for judges — see here.  I dug up the codes today.  Those from section eight relate to discipline, whereas those from section ten relate to professionalism.  These are two substantive sections of the Code.  Here’s a translation of the (former) articles, some parts of which were very difficult to render in English:

8. Discipline

Discipline requires that upholding norms or rules is believed to be part of a higher calling to carry out the mandate and trust of justice seekers. Discipline will encourage the formation of a dutiful approach to one’s responsibilities, sincerity in devotion and setting an example, and respect for the mandate entrusted to them.

Application:

8.1. Judges are obliged to know and perform tasks in accordance with laws and regulations, particularly the laws of procedure, in order to apply the law correctly and fulfill a sense of justice to every seeker of justice.

8.2. Judges must respect the rights of the parties in the judicial process and seek the examination of the case in a simple, rapid and low cost way.

8.3. Judges must assist the parties and try to overcome all obstacles and hurdles to realize justice that is simple, fast and low cost in accordance with the laws and regulations.

8.4. The chairing judge or a judge appointed as such, shall allocate cases to the panel of judges in a fair and equitable manner, and avoid allocation of cases to judge who have a conflict of interest.

10. Professionalism

Professionalism is underpinned by a moral stance that is determined to carry one’s chosen work with earnestness, backed by the expertise as the basis of knowledge, skill and insight. A professional attitude encourages the formation of personal rectitude and to strive to improve one’s knowledge and performance in order to reach the highest quality of work, effectiveness and efficiency.

Application:

10.1. Judges must take steps to maintain and improve their knowledge, skills and personal qualities so as to perform judicial duties properly.

10.2. Judges must diligently carry out their administrative responsibilities in collaboration with judges and other court officials in running the administration of justice.

10.3. Judges shall give priority to judicial duties over other activities professionally.

10.4. Judges must avoid mistakes in their decisions and not ignore the facts that could condemn the accused or parties, or deliberately make favorable consideration of the accused or parties in cases under adjudication.

8. BERDISIPLIN TINGGI

Disiplin bermakna ketaatan pada norma-norma atau kaidah-kaidah yang diyakini sebagai panggilan luhur untuk mengemban amanah serta kepercayaan masyarakat pencari keadilan. Disiplin tinggi akan mendorong terbentuknya pribadi yang tertib di dalam melaksanakan tugas, ikhlas dalam pengabdian dan berusaha untuk menjadi teladan dalam lingkungannya, serta tidak menyalahgunakan amanah yang dipercayakan kepadanya.

Penerapan :

8.1.Hakim berkewajiban mengetahui dan mendalami serta melaksanakan tugas pokok sesuai dengan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku, khususnya hukum acara, agar dapat menerapkan hukum secara benar dan dapat memenuhi rasa keadilan bagi setiap pencari keadilan.

8.2. Hakim harus menghormati hak-hak para pihak dalam proses peradilan dan berusaha mewujudkan pemeriksaan perkara secara sederhana, cepat dan biaya ringan.

8.3. Hakim harus membantu para pihak dan berusaha mengatasi segala hambatan dan rintangan untuk mewujudkan peradilan yang sederhana, cepat dan biaya ringan sesuai dengan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku.

8.4.Ketua Pengadilan atau Hakim yang ditunjuk, harus mendistribusikan perkara kepada Majelis Hakim secara adil dan merata, serta menghindari pendistribusian perkara kepada Hakim yang memiliki konflik kepentingan.

10. BERSIKAP PROFESIONAL

Profesional bermakna suatu sikap moral yang dilandasi oleh tekad untuk melaksanakan pekerjaan yang dipilihnya dengan kesungguhan, yang didukung oleh keahlian atas dasar pengetahuan, keterampilan dan wawasan luas. Sikap profesional akan mendorong terbentuknya pribadi yang senantiasa menjaga dan mempertahankan mutu pekerjaan, serta berusaha untuk meningkatkan pengetahuan dan kinerja, sehingga tercapai setinggi-tingginya mutu hasil pekerjaan, efektif dan efisien.

Penerapan :

10.1. Hakim harus mengambil langkah-langkah untuk memelihara dan meningkatkan pengetahuan, keterampilan dan kualitas pribadi untuk dapat melaksanakan tugas-tugas peradilan secara baik.

10.2. Hakim harus secara tekun melaksanakan tanggung jawab administratif dan bekerja sama dengan para Hakim dan pejabat pengadilan lain dalam menjalankan administrasi peradilan.

10.3. Hakim wajib mengutamakan tugas yudisialnya di atas kegiatan yang lain secara professional.

10.4. Hakim wajib menghindari terjadinya kekeliruan dalam membuat keputusan, atau mengabaikan fakta yang dapat menjerat terdakwa atau para pihak atau dengan sengaja membuat pertimbangan yamg menguntungkan terdakwa atau para pihak dalam mengadili suatu perkara yang ditanganinya.

Download the Code of Conduct here: Kode Etik Hakim

Tagged , ,

The Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889 (UK)

I believe this was the first Act in the UK to criminalise bribery.  The law was originally passed in 1889 and was recently replaced by the Bribery Act in 2010.  Three points struck me as interesting: first, the maximum prison sentence was 7 years–this is much lower than Indonesia’s 20 years; second, repeat offenders were liable to lose access to state pensions and were unable to vote for five years–I don’t believe Indonesian law considers these penalties; and three, all prosecutions under the Act required the approval of the Attorney-General–investigations of corruption relating to current regional leaders and politicians require the approval of the President (but this is stipulated in the Regional Government Act of 2004, not the Corruption Act of 1999 and 2001).

2 Penalty for offences

Any person on conviction for offending as aforesaid shall, at the discretion of the court before which he is convicted,—

(a) be liable—

(i) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both; and

(ii) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or to a fine, or to both; and

(b) in addition be liable to be ordered to pay to such body, and in such manner as the court directs, the amount or value of any gift, loan, fee, or reward received by him or any part thereof; and

(c) be liable to be adjudged incapable of being elected or appointed to any public office for five years from the date of his conviction, and to forfeit any such office held by him at the time of his conviction; and

(d) in the event of a second conviction for a like offence he shall, in addition to the foregoing penalties, be liable to be adjudged to be for ever incapable of holding any public office, and to be incapable for five years of being registered as an elector, or voting at an election either of members to serve in Parliament or of members of any public body, and the enactments for preventing the voting and registration of persons declared by reason of corrupt practices to be incapable of voting shall apply to a person adjudged in pursuance of this section to be incapable of voting; and

(e) if such person is an officer or servant in the employ of any public body upon such conviction he shall, at the discretion of the court, be liable to forfeit his right and claim to any compensation or pension to which he would otherwise have been entitled.

4 Restriction on prosecution

(1) A prosecution for an offence under this Act shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney General.

(2)In this section the expression “Attorney General” means the Attorney F1. . . General for England, and as respects Scotland means the Lord Advocate, . . .

Tagged ,

Supreme Court Removes 8 Points from its Ethics Code

Tempo reported last week that the Supreme Court has removed eight points from its Ethics Code (link here).  The  Ethics Code was jointly promulgated by the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission on 8 April 2009 and is the basis for the Judicial Commissions monitoring of judges.  The Judicial Commission expressed disappointment with the decision and Asep Rahmat, spokesperson for the Judicial Commission, indicated that it was prepared to work with the Supreme Court to ensure the Ethics Code continue to comply with the Bangalore Principals of the Judicial Conduct.

The Judicial Commission was disappointed with the decision of the Supreme Court to revoke eight points from the Ethical Code of Judges, one of which contains a prohibition against ignoring the trial facts. Judicial Commission spokesman, Asep Rahmat Fajar, expressed respect for the verdict but disappointed with the decision of the Supreme Court.

“Hopefully, KY [the Judicial Commssion] can coordinate with the Supreme Court for the reformulation of the material to ensure its accordance with the “2002 Bangalore Principles ” of Judicial Conduct,” said Asep by telephone, Tuesday, February 14, 2012.

Komisi Yudisial kecewa dengan putusan Mahkamah Agung mencabut delapan poin Kode Etik Hakim, yang salah satunya berisi larangan mengabaikan fakta persidangan. Juru bicara KY, Asep Rahmat Fajar, menyatakan menghormati putusan, meski sebenarnya kecewa dengan pilihan MA.

“Harapannya, KY bisa berkoordinasi dengan MA untuk reformulasi materi sehingga masih sesuai dengan “Bangalore Principles 2002″ tentang Kode Etik Hakim, tapi tetap memperhatikan concern kemarin,” kata Asep melalui telepon, Selasa, 14 Februari 2012.

The following codes were removed: 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4 as well as 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, dan 10.4.  I’ll try to dig the specifics this week.

h/t KP2KKN’s media blog, here.

 

Tagged , ,

Batang Bupati Steps Down, KP2KKN Petitions Central Java High Prosecutor

Last Monday KP2KKn sent a formal letter to the Chief High Prosecutor for Central Java requesting that the prosecutor complete its investigation of the former Bupati of Batang district, Bambang Bintoro.  The case originates from 2004 and the former Bupati was named a suspect in May 2008.  The letter was prompted by his leaving office on 13 February 2012.  Sending formal letters, identifying reasons for delays and putting pressure on law enforcement agents is a core strategy for civil society groups.

I’ve translated the letter and highlighted a few interesting parts below:

Number: 28/SK/KP2KKN/II/2012

Attachements: –

Re: Urging the Chief High Prosecutor or Central Java immediately conduct an investigation

Dear:

Head of the High Court in Central Java

In –

SEMARANG.

Dear Sir,

Please allow us, the Committee for the Investigation and Eradication of Corruption, Collusion and Nepotism (KP2KKN) Central Java, as a non-governmental organizations (NGOs) concentrated on the eradication and prevention of corruption, collusion and nepotism in particular that occurred in Central Java Province.

That data collected by Central Java KP2KKN relating to the alleged corruption of funds totally Rp. 796 million ($100,000) from the 2004 District Budget that was distributed Batang legislators in the Rose Room and which allegedly involves Bambang Bintoro Batang Regent be handled by the High Prosecutor in Central Java.

That in this case the High Prosecutor in Central Java has already declared former Batang Regent, Bambang Bintoro, as a corruption suspect in May 2008.

Based on the above KP2KKN Central Java request that the High Prosecutor’s Office of Central Java immediately conduct an investigation, arrest, detention and delegate the case file in the name of suspect Bambang Bintoro to the Semarang Corruption Court to be tried for alleged corruption. Considering that starting today, Monday, February 13, 2012, Bambang Bintoro no longer serves as an active regent, and there are no more excuses for the High Prosecutor of Central Java not continue the investigation against Bambang Bintoro.  For some time the High Prosecutor has provided the classic excuse that the President had not provided permission to examine the Batang Regent Bambang Bintoro as an active regional head involved in corruption cases.

Therefore, we believe there is no reason for the High Prosecutor’s Office of Central Java to further delay an investigation against the suspect Bambang Bintoro, because it is no longer necessary for President of the Republic of Indonesia to provide permission, and to ensure the equality of all people before the law.

Thus we submit this letter, and we thank you for your attention and cooperation in fighting corruption over the years.

Semarang, February 13, 2012

Sincerely,

KP2KKN Central Java;

 

Eko Haryanto

Coordinator of the Division for the Monitoring of Law Enforcement Officials

The letter in Indonesian is available on KP2KKN’s media blog, here.

 

Tagged , ,

New Book on Corruption in China

Andrew Wedeman, Professor of Political Science at the University of Nebraska, will publish a new book on corruption in China on April 3rd.  The political system in China is fundamentally different to Indonesia and I’m keen to learn more about both the implications for corruption as well as the enforcement of corruption laws.  Here’s the publisher’s blurb:

According to conventional wisdom, rising corruption reduces economic growth. And yet, between 1978 and 2010, even as officials were looting state coffers, extorting bribes, raking in kickbacks, and scraping off rents at unprecedented rates, the Chinese economy grew at an average annual rate of 9 percent. In Double Paradox, Andrew Wedeman seeks to explain why the Chinese economy performed so well despite widespread corruption at almost kleptocratic levels.

Wedeman finds that the Chinese economy was able to survive predatory corruption because corruption did not explode until after economic reforms had unleashed dynamic growth. To a considerable extent corruption was also a by-product of the transfer of undervalued assets from the state to the emerging private and corporate sectors and a scramble to capture the windfall profits created by their transfer. Perhaps most critically, an anticorruption campaign, however flawed, has proved sufficient to prevent corruption from spiraling out of control. Drawing on more than three decades of data from China-as well as examples of the interplay between corruption and growth in South Korea, Taiwan, Equatorial Guinea, and other nations in Africa and the Caribbean-Wedeman cautions that rapid growth requires not only ongoing and improved anticorruption efforts but also consolidated and strengthened property rights.

You can pre-order the book on Amazon, here.

There’s a few academics and colleagues here in Oxford working on China (many more than those working on Indonesia!) and so hopefully I’ll be able to post other articles on this interesting comparison.  I hope also to learn a little about India, where efforts to pass an anti-corruption law have torn apart the current government.

h/t China Copyright and Media, here.

Tagged