Indonesia’s Anti Corruption Law Essay Sample

1. Condemnable Code Offenses
Law No. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of the Criminal Act of Corruption ( “Law No. 31/1999” ) as amended by Law No. 20/2001. expands upon and adds to these condemnable offenses and. non surprisingly. additions significantly the punishments for breach of the Criminal Code commissariats ( which. to a big extent are now to the full incorporated into Law No. 31/1999 ) .

2. Management Responsibility for Corporate Actions
Law No. 31/1999 has of import deductions for the Board of Directors of all Indonesian companies as Article 20 provinces that “In the event that the condemnable act of corruptness is committed by or on behalf of a corporation. the case and the sentence may be instituted against and imposed on the corporation or the board” . Judges can order that the board of managers to be brought to the tribunal. Directors of companies under probe should besides be cognizant of farther commissariats of Law No. 31/1999 which impose heavy tutelary sentences and mulcts on those who prevent. hinder or foil. probes and cases. or who provide false information to the governments or to the tribunal. 3. Probe and Prosecution of Corruption

The authorities acknowledges that look intoing corruptness is non easy and conveying successful prosecutions is highly difficult. With this in head. the drafters of Law No. 31/1999 and Law No. 20/2001 tried to ease the load on prosecuting officers and the tribunals by presenting a figure of ( in some instances. slightly controversial ) steps: ?Investigators are authorised to utilize wire-tapping. The Government are soon fixing a bill of exchange ordinance sing wire-tapping. ?The prosecuting governments and the tribunal may bespeak fiscal information on the suspect or the accused from Bankss and petition that sedimentation histories be blocked ( both petitions to be made through Bank Indonesia ) . ?Suspects can be required to supply information on their and their family’s assets. ?Investigators are given authorization to open. examine. confiscate and utilize about all types of information. records. correspondence and other grounds which may be relevant to the suspected condemnable act. ?An acquittal finding of fact in a condemnable prosecution does non get rid of the right to repossess the loss inflicted on the province. ?If a fishy dies during an enquiry or prosecution. the case may. in some fortunes. be continued against the suspect’s inheritor ( s ) . ?If an accused chooses to but can non turn out that his wealth or assets was non obtained unlawfully so this can be used against him by the prosecution and the assets may be confiscated by the province. The Government are soon discoursing a bill of exchange measure on civil forfeiture. 4. Public Participation in Eradication of Corruption

In order to implement this. the authorities issued Government Regulation No. 71/2000 on Procedures for Implementation of Public Participation and Provision of Appreciation in the Prevention and Eradication of the Criminal Act of Corruption. This ordinance gives certain rights to the populace to obtain responses from the governments in regard of ailments or information provided to the governments. It besides tries to supply protection to members of the populace who offer information. Finally. those persons or corporations who assist in the battle against corruptness may be given items of grasp. either in the signifier of certifications or hard currency.

5. Eradication of Corruptness by State Organizers
In November 1998. the People’s Consultative Assembly or MPR made a Stipulation ( No. XI/MPR/1998 ) that province organisers ( slackly. senior authorities functionaries ) should execute their maps and undertakings candidly. reasonably. transparently and faithfully. and free from patterns of corruptness. collusion and nepotism. State organisers should besides be willing to unwrap their wealth and to hold their wealth investigated before and after presuming office.

This Stipulation was followed up in 1998 by Law No. 28/1999 on The State Organizer Who is Free from Corruption. Collusion and Nepotism. This jurisprudence. among other affairs. order punishments for offenses of “collusion” and “nepotism” by province organisers and provides for an independent Investigating Commission to forestall corruptness. collusion and nepotism by province organisers.

6. State Ombudsman
A National Ombudsman Commission was established pursuant to Presidential
Decree No. 44 of 2000 with the purpose of oversing and supervising the services of the executive and the bench. The powers of the Ombudsman are limited and the organic structure chiefly fulfils a supervisory function. On 7 September 2008. Law No. 37 of 2008 on the Ombudsman of the Republic of Indonesia ( “Law No. 37 of 2008” ) was enacted and the National Ombudsman Commission was declared to be the Ombudsman of the Republic of Indonesia ( “Ombudsman” ) . Law No. 37 of 2008 defines a Report as a ailment or fact entry to be settled or followed up by the Ombudsman submitted in authorship or orally by anyone who falls victim to an act of maladministration ( maladministrasi ) . Maladministration is defined as a certain action in relation to the public presentation of public services by the State Administrator and Government which causes a material and/or immaterial loss to the populace and an person. The Ombudsman’s map is to oversee the populace services provided by the State Administrator and the Government to the populace ( including by state-owned endeavors ( Badan Usaha Milik Negara ) . regional government-owned endeavors ( Badan Usaha Milik Daerah ) . state-owned legal entities ( Badan Hukum Milik Negara ) . private endeavors ( Badan Swasta ) or persons ( perseorangan ) 7. Corruption Eradication Commission ( the “KPK” )

The KPK was established by Law No. 30 of 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission ( “Law No. 30/2002” ) and is intended to implement Article 43 of Law No. 31/1999 ( as amended ) . The function of the KPK is to:

?coordinate with the bureaus holding the authorization to eliminate corruptness ; ?supervise the bureaus holding the authorization to eliminate corruptness ; ?conduct probes. questions and prosecutions with regard to corruptness ; ?take stairss to forestall corruptness ; and

?Monitor the direction of authorities.