Soeharto foundations and KKN
Soeharto foundations and KKN
From Bisnis Indonesia
Bisnis Indonesia on Dec. 15 published an article on page 16 regarding the disbursement of funds by Soeharto's foundations without going through the mechanisms of a meeting of the board of directors. I would like to focus on the relationship between the disbursement and the practice of corruption, collusion and nepotism (KKN).
If the disbursed funds were from a (private) foundation of which Soeharto himself was the chairman, although the order was not preceded by a meeting of the board members, I think it has no links with the practice of KKN.
At the most, if the foundation board members were not in agreement, they could bring the case to court and sue Soeharto.
To say whether or not the foundation funds are linked with KKN, the prosecutor must prove that the acquisition of the foundation's funds was against the law. If the funds were from a foundation with private status and were acquired by abuse of power by the president, only then can the foundation funds be viewed as "illegal", based on Law No. 3/1971.
If subsequently on the order of the foundation chairman (in this case Soeharto himself) the funds were taken from the foundation and disbursed to his relatives or cronies, it strengthens the fulfillment of two aspects of the above law, "causing a loss of state money" and "enriching oneself or another party".
However, for example, if the money is given by the foundation to the Agriculture Ministry or the Social Affairs Ministry to help increase the capacity of clove or tea farmers, there is the possibility that "causing a loss of state money" did not take place, although the mobilization of funds from the community is in violation of the law because it does not follow the Law on the State Budget (paragraph 31, item 1, and Article 4 of the 1945 Constitution).
In short, to draw the conclusion that the disbursement of foundation funds are connected with the practice of KKN, the prosecutor must prove:
1. The mobilization of funds took place by using public authority, which according to stipulations is not justified.
2. The state has suffered a loss by the disbursement of money from state/government institutions.
3. The money is used for personal purposes, or funneled to relatives or cronies.
If the prosecutor's case fulfills the above three conditions, the order for the disbursement of the funds without a meeting of the board of directors qualifies as an act of corruption.
S. SOENOESOEBRATA
Tangerang, West Java