Book Review: Eradicating Corruption While Corrupting: Don't Just Catch the Perpetrators, Chase the Money and the Original Crime
The eradication of corruption must not stop at naming suspects. The tracing of money, the original predicate crimes, the parties who enjoyed the proceeds of crime, and allegations of abuse of authority in the law enforcement process must all be uncovered in a single, comprehensive chain. This view emerged during a book review of ‘Memberantas Korupsi Sembari Korupsi’ (Eradicating Corruption While Corrupting) organised by the Civil Society Coalition Against Corruption (Kosmak). Seven speakers at the forum highlighted different perspectives on corruption cases but agreed on the need for a thorough legal process.
Money laundering expert Yenti Garnasih was one of the most emphatic in pushing for this approach. She argued that law enforcers should 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 in Jakarta on Monday, 10 August 2026. She urged that all predicate crimes be exposed because money laundering does not exist in a vacuum. ‘If the event always requires a predicate crime, then there is a money laundering crime,’ she stated. However, she noted that not all money launderers must be the perpetrators of the predicate crime. Yenti also proposed a more active approach, suggesting that investigators need not always wait for the predicate crime to be uncovered first. According to her, wealth that is inconsistent with a person’s profile can serve as an entry point for investigation. ‘When certain individuals possess assets that do not match their profile, that is already an indication of money laundering,’ she said. Sources of information could include reports from the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (PPATK), suspicious banking transactions, or State Officials’ Wealth Reports (LHKPN). She cautioned law enforcers against focusing solely on the three individuals already named as suspects in the case under discussion, warning that stopping there risks leaving the network of predicate crimes and other beneficiaries unexposed.
Former Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) deputy chairman Saut Situmorang viewed the issue from an institutional perspective. He stated that the authority held by anti-corruption bodies must be genuinely exercised when there are legal grounds to take over a case. Saut referred to Article 10A of the KPK Law and assessed that the commission has powers that can be used under certain conditions, even suggesting that the government needs to restore the KPK’s strength. However, he noted that the problem does not end with formal authority; the law enforcement process must also be supervised using clear indicators. He listed four: transparency, accountability, freedom from conflicts of interest, and fairness.
Criminal law expert from Muhammadiyah University Jakarta, Chairul Huda, stated that the pursuit of money flows must be accompanied by the precise use of legal instruments. He argued that anti-corruption efforts should not become the sole instrument for all economic crimes that cause state losses. Huda pointed out problems when environmental, banking, forestry, or trade cases that already have specific criminal regulations are instead prosecuted as corruption. He warned that this ambiguity could lead to selective law enforcement. Huda also expressed concern over a shift in bribery patterns, noting that while people used to bribe to be freed, now some bribe to have others punished, turning the law into an instrument to alter someone’s position in a competition of interests.
Dahlan Iskan viewed the issue from a strategic perspective, stating that law enforcement agencies cannot eradicate all corruption at once with their limited resources. He proposed implementing a scale of priorities and time-bound targets, noting that the eradication effort has reached a stage of being overwhelmed. He suggested the first priority should be directed at law enforcement officials themselves, with a five-year target. Dahlan cited Hong Kong as an example, where anti-corruption efforts once reached a tipping point when internal police conflicts became very public.
Advocate and Kosmak Coordinator Petrus Selestinus stated that a comprehensive approach is necessary because the coalition’s investigations have found several cases with common threads. He urged that ongoing cases be handled professionally and accountably, with legal theories and statutory provisions properly applied. One alleged case investigated by the coalition involves the manipulation of coal quality, which Kosmak claims has caused state losses of approximately Rp 5 trillion. According to the forum’s presentation, this case had progressed to the investigation stage by July 2026. Petrus urged law enforcement not to stop at the known cases but to trace all potentially related layers.
A constitutional perspective was provided by former Constitutional Court Justice Maruar Siahaan, who stated that the management of natural resources must be returned to the constitutional mandate. He reminded the audience of Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution, which mandates that natural resources be used for the greatest prosperity of the people. He argued that natural resources not managed according to this constitutional mandate could turn into sources of corruption and conflict.