A

maelstrom of debate popped up in the wake of the corruption case that implicated the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS). The evidence includes a bribe intercepted by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) worth Rp 1 billion (US$105,267) allegedly given indirectly to the former PKS chairman Luthfi Hasan Ishaaq  by a private company to increase the beef quota.

The case ignited further debate after the KPK confiscated immense assets belonging to the suspects, including luxury cars, houses and gifts given to individuals, who were quick to disassociate themselves with the case.

The legal base of this seizure is Law No. 10/2010 on money laundering. Despite having applied several times, the question still arises whether the corruption case would first be tried under the Corruption Law, before imposing the Money Laundering Law.

In other cases, the KPK imposed them concurrently. But this time, the action drew protest from PKS supporters and some legal experts have taken sides with this camp.

Many people, me included, support the KPK. Corruptors must be punished and return all their ill gotten gains. In doing so, the KPK must be armed with legal munitions at its disposal. People express concern over many corruption trial verdicts. Besides lenient jail terms, corruptors were frequently insufficiently fined; this had no deterrent effect and encourages corruptors.

For a long time, people and legal experts advocated the reverse burden of proof (reverse onus) law. By this law, rich public officers that gained their wealth by questionable means can be put on trial. Actually in 2006, Indonesia ratified United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC).

 In this convention, the article on the criminalization of illicit enrichment paves the way for investigation into any significant increase of public officers'€™ assets. Unfortunately, in our legal system this already-ratified convention must be enacted by law prior to application. Thus, to retrieve state money, the Money Laundering Law must be enforced.

From the unfolding information in this case, there was action by the suspects to influence the decision makers at the Agriculture Ministry to favor the private company. As usual, the chance that the KPK made a mistake is relatively very small.

If only this case is processed there would be no state losses because Agriculture Minister Suswono rejected the proposal of quota raise. How do we know that this is an isolated case? Given the fact that Ahmad Fathanah and Luthfi were friends for a long time, both are immensely rich and Luthfi was the treasurer-turned-chairman of the party, it is assumed that this incident was not the first time. Thus, it is reasonable to investigate more rigorously.

The debate becomes more interesting when more people enter the fray. If the Money Laundering Law cannot be applied to suspect corruptors people, on social media, came up with the idea to detain and impoverish them by applying Law No 28/2007 on tax.

This reminds us of the heroic story of US treasury officer Elliot Ness catching of Chicago'€™s prominent gangster, Al Capone. When his all-out efforts to charge Al Capone with the national prohibition act, which banned the trade of alcoholic beverages, came to a dead end, he simply changed tactic and charged him with income tax evasion instead.

As the maxim goes; fiat justitia ruat caelum (do justice and let the sky fall). Corruptors and their collaborators will fight back, but justice must be done. As long as corruptors can be put in jail and the money can be retrieved, any legal means is halal (rightful).

Erwin Wirawan
Jakarta