Anti-Corruption Activists: Catch the Perpetrators and Pursue the Proceeds of Crime

The eradication of corruption must not stop at naming suspects. The tracing of funds, predicate offences, parties enjoying the proceeds of crime, and allegations of abuse of authority in the law enforcement process must all be uncovered in a single chain. This view emerged during a review of the book ‘Memberantas Korupsi Sembari Korupsi’ (Eradicating Corruption While Committing Corruption) organised by the Civil Society Coalition Against Corruption (Kosmak). Seven speakers at the forum highlighted corruption cases from different perspectives, but all demanded a comprehensive legal process.

Money laundering expert Yenti Garnasih was one of the most emphatic speakers pushing for this approach. According to Yenti, law enforcers must not only pursue individuals who have been named as suspects. ‘The most important thing is to uncover the corruption itself,’ Yenti said during the discussion held at the Tempo Building, Jakarta, on Monday, 10 August 2026. She urged that all predicate offences be exposed because money laundering does not exist in a vacuum. ‘The event always requires a predicate offence before a money laundering offence can occur,’ she stated. However, she noted that not all money laundering perpetrators must also be the perpetrators of the predicate offence.

Yenti also proposed a more active approach, whereby investigators do not always have to wait for the predicate offence to be uncovered first before tracing suspected money laundering. According to her, wealth that does not match a person’s profile can serve as an entry point. ‘When certain parties possess assets inconsistent with their identity, we can enter as there is already an indication of money laundering,’ she said. Sources of information, Yenti added, could come from reports by the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (PPATK), suspicious banking transactions, or the State Administrators’ Wealth Reports (LHKPN). She reminded law enforcers not to focus solely on the three individuals who have been named suspects in the case under discussion. ‘Do not focus only on these three. That is not possible,’ she said. According to Yenti, if the investigation stops only at the known suspects, there is a risk that the network of predicate offences and other parties who benefited from the crime will never be revealed.

Former Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) commissioner Saut Situmorang viewed the issue from an institutional perspective. He stated that the authority held by the anti-corruption body must be genuinely used when there are legal grounds to take over a case. Saut referred to Article 10A of the KPK Law and assessed that the KPK has authority that can be used under certain conditions. He even stated that the government needs to restore the KPK’s strength. However, according to Saut, the problem does not stop at formal authority. The law enforcement process must also be supervised with clear metrics. He cited four indicators: transparency, accountability, freedom from conflicts of interest, and fairness.

Criminal law expert from the University of Muhammadiyah Jakarta, Chairul Huda, stated that the pursuit of money flows must also be accompanied by the precise use of legal instruments. He assessed that corruption eradication should not become the sole instrument for all forms of economic crime that harm the state. Chairul noted problems arise when environmental, banking, forestry, or trade cases that already have specific criminal regulations are instead brought into the realm of corruption offences. According to him, this ambiguity can result in selective law enforcement. Chairul also expressed his concerns regarding changes in bribery patterns. ‘In the past, people bribed to be free; now many people bribe so that others are punished,’ he said. He stated that such practices could turn the law into an instrument to change a person’s position in a competition of interests.

Dahlan Iskan viewed the issue from the perspective of eradication strategy. According to him, law enforcement officers cannot possibly eradicate all corruption at once with limited resources. Therefore, he proposed a scale of priorities and time targets. ‘Corruption eradication has reached a stage of being overwhelmed,’ Dahlan said. He suggested the first priority could be directed at law enforcement officers with a five-year target. ‘Successful management is management that has a scale of priorities and targets,’ he stated. Dahlan also cited the example of Hong Kong, where corruption eradication once reached a tipping point when internal conflict within the police force became very public.

For advocate and Kosmak Coordinator Petrus Selestinus, a comprehensive approach is necessary because Kosmak’s investigations have found a number of cases that they believe share a common thread. Petrus said Kosmak is demanding that the process for cases being handled by authorities be completed professionally and accountably. ‘Legal theories must be applied, statutory provisions must be applied,’ he said. He stated that one of the alleged cases under investigation relates to the manipulation of coal quality, which Kosmak estimates caused state losses of around Rp 5 trillion. According to the presentation at the forum, the case had progressed to the investigation stage in July 2026. Petrus urged authorities not to stop at the known case but to trace all layers that may be connected.

A constitutional perspective came from Maruar Siahaan. The former Constitutional Court judge stated that the management of natural resources must be returned to the constitutional mandate.