TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
What we can expect from Mahfud-led task force
Money laundering is inherently complex as they are committed by white-collar workers, and it will be tough to build up cases if we still adopt conventional approaches.
Change Size
Coordinating Political, Legal and Security Affairs Minister Mahfud MD (left), who also chairs the national anti-money laundering committee,
talks with Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati as they attend a hearing with the House of Representatives Commission III on legal affairs in Jakarta, on April 11. The meeting discussed the committee’s latest findings about suspicious Rp 349 trillion (US$23.6 billion) transactions. (Antara/Galih Pradipta)
C
oordinating Political, Legal and Security Affairs Minister Mahfud MD has set up a special task force to further investigate the indications of money laundering involving Rp 349 trillion (US$23.2 billion) that were allegedly committed by officials within the Finance Ministry.
The road ahead for the task force would conceivably be steep and winding considering the challenges in building up anti-money laundering cases in Indonesia. Just to give an example, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) being Indonesia’s forefront runner for corruption eradication is still facing challenges in building up a money laundering case against a former tax official due to the difficulty in discovering the predicate crime.
We may understand the problem given the KPK is authorized primarily to prosecute corruption cases. But another point of view would argue that the KPK should put emphasis on the assets instead of the predicate crime.
Money laundering is inherently complex as it is committed by white-collar workers, and it would be tough to build up cases if we still adopt conventional approaches. Therefore, the proper approach is to follow the money instead of the crime where the money originates from.
As a matter of fact, our anti-money laundering law has incorporated certain provisions to tackle this issue. To carry out investigations, prosecutions and examinations of money laundering crimes, law enforcers are not required to first prove the predicate crime. Another provision is on the reverse burden proof where the law requires the defendant instead of the prosecutor to prove that her assets do not originate from criminal offenses.
Lawmakers seem to have the understanding that proving the predicate crime would be challenging and thus grabbing it by the tail. If the defendant fails to prove the validity of her assets, it would be the entry point to uncover the predicate crime.
Despite the above, it appears that there is a mindset gap between what is being set out progressively in the law and how it is implemented in practice. The practice thus far seems to suggest that law enforcers are required to have indications of predicate crime to be able to prosecute. Money laundering might not be considered a stand-alone crime as it is arguably the continuation of the predicate crime. But the focus is not on finding the indication of the predicate crime. It should instead be on finding the suspicions in the assets of the alleged individuals, which thereafter would lead to the predicate crime.
