Business Leaders' Concerns over Task Force for Economic Crime Impact on Investment
Business leaders have assessed that the formation of a Task Force for the Handling of Economic Crime could strengthen efforts to recover state assets. However, the task force’s law enforcement authority across the full spectrum of economic crime has the potential to create legal uncertainty if its regulations are unclear and too broad.
“Such legal uncertainty can affect public and investor sentiment,” said Bob Azam, Head of Labour Affairs at the Indonesian Employers’ Association, in a written statement on Monday, 16 March 2026.
The plan to establish this task force emerged in a draft Government Regulation in Lieu of a Law concerning the eradication of economic crimes and the recovery of the national economy.
One of the considerations for establishing the task force, which is formed by the Attorney General’s office, is to support the recovery of economic losses due to the high level of state asset leakages.
The task force will have the authority to conduct intelligence investigations, investigations, prosecution, and asset recovery in an integrated manner under a single prosecution system. In carrying out its duties, the task force is also given the authority to take over cases handled by other institutions. The task force is also exempt from banking secrecy provisions and can halt investigations and prosecutions using a settlement fine mechanism.
Bob stated that investors generally require regulatory certainty, regulatory stability, and clarity regarding which institutions have the authority to enforce the law. According to him, business people may assess the business environment as more risky if perceptions emerge that economic law enforcement is unstable or excessively repressive.
He also highlighted the task force’s authority to halt cases through settlement fines, which could raise concerns if not regulated transparently.
In the practice of economic law enforcement, Bob noted that business people often find themselves under pressure because criminal proceedings can damage company reputation and disrupt business activities. This situation ultimately drives businesses to pay fines to quickly halt cases, even though there remains debate about the alleged wrongdoings.
This condition has the potential to create perceptions of extortion or legal pressure to obtain specific payments.
Without clear standards, Bob fears that such a mechanism could create perceptions of transactional practices and give the impression that law enforcement is negotiable. As a result, public trust in the law enforcement system would be damaged.
To prevent moral hazard, Bob emphasised the importance of clear regulations regarding the fine formula, transparent procedures, and strong oversight of decisions to halt cases.