MENCEGAH KEJAHATAN FINANCIAL DI INDONESIA

Prevention Efforts

Actually, Indonesia has created a strict regulation and policy to tackle this kind of crime, but it’s not running as like the expectation in implementing it. This below is the process that government has made to prevent the financial crime and how it is worked

• ·         Customer due diligence
• ·        Reporting
• ·         Regulation
• ·         Sanction

• 1.      The compliance element customer due diligence has seen from the arranged of the principle of service user in UU88/2010 which has arranged in article of 18 to article of 22.  Those constitutions have arranged how financial service providers and goods/service providers involved in preventing the financial crime with obligated to “recognize service user” when do the transactions with their clients/ customers. Explained clearly in UU8/2010, the principle to recognize service user did covering minimally the identification of service user, the verification of service user, and monitoring the transaction of service user. Example: when the customer of the bank do the financial transaction and the amount of transactions is above Rp 100 million so the customers of the bank shall be obligated for giving the information about their identities, the source of fund, and the purpose of transactions with fulfilling the forms that was provided by the banks and attaching the supported documents.
•  
• 2.      The compliance of reporting element has seen from  arranged  about the financial transaction report in UU8/2010  has arranged in article of 30. Within those articles, explained about the obligation of financial service provider for reporting to the PPATK in the form of  Financial Suspicious Transaction Report (LTKM),  Cash Financial Transaction Report (LTKT), and Financial Transactions Transfer Funds from domestic and overseas, then to the goods/service provider is obligated to report every transactions as little as Rp 500 million. The compliance of reporting element has seen from arranged either the financial cash  carriage or other transaction instrument  from/to  local customs Indonesia in the article 34 to article 36 UU8/2010, where the Directorate General of Customs and Excise involved
•  
• 3.      The compliance of reporting element has seen clearly with enactment of UU8/2010 now
•  
• 4.    The compliance of reporting element has seen from the transactions arranged UU8/10. Heavy sanction is perpetrators of money laundering included in article 3, namely maximum imprisonment of 20 years and fine as much as Rp 10 billion.

 
As a matter of fact, This prevention has proven not effective that proved by a lot of Indonesian who  can still stash their money abroad retrieved from Panama Paper, it’s around 11000 Indonesian. So that means wake up call for Indonesia government to create an effective prevention system to prevent this financial crime in the future and bring back Indonesian money to the nation.  In my opinion, government should more pro-active, firm, and brave to against this financial crime as a result of this financial crime is hampering an economy development of nation.  
few suggestions to prevent this financial crime

• 1.      Coorporation 

Indonesian governments need to be more active and proactive to tackle this crime through inviting a lot of international community of country to make deal of the transparency in the member of community in which the members should report all of financial assets of the citizen to one another members of community, so the every citizen can not hide their assets in another country that has joined the agreements.
 

• 2.      Transparency

So far the government of Indonesia, Banks and the Directorate General of Taxation and Customs have  an information about the list of Indonesian who stash their money abroad and domestic who did not report completely  their assets but those institutions do not give this information to KPK,BPK, and PPATK. It has proven when government want to allow tax amnesty law which government were saying that at least there 3000 Indonesia who stash and unreported their money abroad. In making question mark from Indonesia citizens why government do not give this data to the institution who has authorities to catch them up rather than giving the tax amnesty. So by this analysis, I believe that when transparency of information among outstanding institutions Indonesia  and among government in the world financial crime not impossible can be minimized as low as possible because the problem in catching this defendant is the accessed of information.

• 3.      Brave

Indonesian government need to be brave in combating the financial crime. so far, it haven’t be shown yet by them. It makes Indonesia citizen doubt toward capability government. There are several indications if members of government and outstanding figures in the country are involved in this case so they did not brave to fight them self. It has shown by their behaviors so far such as did not give any the list of suspicious toward the KPK and friends, so the braveness in combating and preventing financial crime is to be questionable here.
 

• 4.      Regulation

Indonesia government need to review their constitutions because there are many constitutions that overlapping one another that make it complicated to be implemented. Commonly, this is always happing in this country.   

• 5.      Punishment

Sometimes, defendants were already there but the punishment was unsatisfied toward them. In here, Indonesia government needs to take a firm and heavy punishment toward financial crime, the proof that current punishment is not make the defendant of the financial crimes afraid, the fact they still do the financial crimes till now, so I suggests that the government needs to reform their punishment as well as firm in terms of the implementation.