Tag:

assegaf

KPK Spokesperson Budi Prasetyo Unfazed by Ethics Complaint from Witness Faizal Assegaf Amidst High-Profile Customs Corruption Probe

by Lina Irawan August 24, 2025

written by Lina Irawan

Jakarta, Indonesia – The spokesperson for Indonesia’s Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), Budi Prasetyo, has publicly dismissed an ethics complaint filed against him by Faizal Assegaf, the Director of PT Sinkos Multimedia Mandiri, to the KPK Supervisory Board (Dewas KPK). Prasetyo expressed confidence in the Supervisory Board’s objectivity, stating that the commission’s investigators remain singularly focused on the ongoing high-profile corruption case within the Directorate General of Customs and Excise, where Assegaf is a key witness. This development highlights the complex and often contentious dynamics inherent in Indonesia’s anti-corruption efforts, particularly concerning interactions between investigators and individuals under scrutiny.

The ethical complaint against Prasetyo was formally lodged by Assegaf, accompanied by legal counsel from Djamaludin Koedoeboen & Partners, on April 15. The complaint invokes Article 37B of Law Number 19 of 2019, which delineates the authority of the Dewas KPK to investigate alleged ethical breaches by KPK personnel. Assegaf’s legal team specifically requested that Dewas KPK summon Prasetyo for an ethical review. This action marks a significant escalation in the tensions surrounding the Customs and Excise investigation, drawing attention to the procedural integrity and ethical conduct expected from the nation’s leading anti-corruption body.

Background: The KPK, Dewas, and Indonesia’s Anti-Corruption Landscape

To fully comprehend the gravity of this situation, it is crucial to understand the institutional framework of the KPK and its Supervisory Board. The Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK) was established in 2002, following the fall of the New Order regime, as an independent state institution tasked with eradicating corruption in Indonesia. It was granted extraordinary powers, including the authority to investigate, prosecute, and oversee corruption cases, often bypassing traditional law enforcement agencies. Its early years were marked by significant successes, earning it widespread public trust and a reputation as a beacon of integrity in a country historically plagued by corruption.

However, the KPK’s independence and powers have been a subject of ongoing debate and legislative changes. A pivotal moment came with the enactment of Law Number 19 of 2019, which revised the 2002 KPK Law. This controversial amendment introduced the KPK Supervisory Board (Dewas KPK), an internal oversight body with the authority to issue investigation permits, approve wiretaps, and conduct ethical reviews of KPK employees. Critics argued that the establishment of Dewas KPK, whose members are appointed by the President, fundamentally undermined the KPK’s independence and investigative capabilities, transforming it from an autonomous agency into a state institution more susceptible to political influence.

Article 37B, cited in Faizal Assegaf’s report, specifically empowers Dewas KPK to "supervise the implementation of duties and authorities of the KPK leadership and employees, including receiving and investigating complaints regarding alleged ethical violations." This provision is now at the forefront of the dispute between Assegaf and Prasetyo, underscoring the new internal accountability mechanisms within the KPK post-2019 reforms. The outcome of Dewas’s review will not only affect the individuals involved but also serve as a test case for the effectiveness and impartiality of this oversight body.

The Customs and Excise Corruption Case: A Broader Context

The underlying corruption case that implicates Faizal Assegaf as a witness is centered on alleged bribery and gratification within the Directorate General of Customs and Excise. This institution is critical for Indonesia’s state revenue, collecting duties on imports and exports and regulating trade. Corruption within such a vital economic gatekeeper can have far-reaching consequences, including significant losses in state revenue, distortion of fair competition, and erosion of investor confidence.

KPK’s investigation into Customs and Excise typically targets complex networks involving officials and private entities, often related to the illicit management of excise, under-declaration of goods, or expedited customs clearance in exchange for bribes. Such schemes not only deprive the state of legitimate income but also facilitate the entry of illegal goods and create an uneven playing field for honest businesses. The current probe involves seven detained suspects, including high-ranking officials and private sector individuals, indicating the wide scope and severity of the alleged offenses.

The detained suspects include Rizal, identified as the former Director of Investigation & Enforcement at the Directorate General of Customs and Excise from 2024 to January 2026 (the year range suggesting a potential typo or a future-dated reference in the original source, assuming the events are current or very recent, e.g., 2024). Also implicated are Sisprian Subiaksono, Head of the Subdirectorate of Intelligence for Investigation and Enforcement (Kasubdit Intel P2 DJBC); Orlando, Head of the Intelligence Section (Kasi Intel DJBC); Andri, Team Leader for Importation Documents at PT Blueray; Budiman Bayu Prasojo, a Customs and Excise employee; John Field, Owner of PT Blueray; and Dedy Kurniawan, Operational Manager of PT Blueray. The involvement of both senior customs officials and private company executives underscores the collaborative nature of such corruption schemes.

Chronology of Events Leading to the Complaint

The timeline of events highlights the escalating conflict:

April 7: Faizal Assegaf was summoned and examined by KPK investigators as a witness in the ongoing Customs and Excise corruption case. During this examination, KPK investigators delved into allegations that Assegaf had received goods from one of the suspects in the case. Faizal Assegaf reportedly admitted to these receipts during the interrogation. This examination was crucial for completing the dossiers for the seven already detained suspects in the alleged bribery and gratification scheme. The focus of the questioning, according to Budi Prasetyo, was specifically on matters related to excise management.
Prior to April 15 (Exact Date Undisclosed): Faizal Assegaf had already taken legal action against Budi Prasetyo, filing a report with the Jakarta Metropolitan Police (Polda Metro Jaya) for alleged defamation. This report was officially registered under the number LP/B/2592/IV/2026/SPKT/POLDA METRO JAYA. The future-dated year "2026" in the police report number has been noted as an anomaly, potentially a typographical error in the original record, but signifies a formal complaint lodged with law enforcement. This pre-existing police report indicates a simmering dispute between Assegaf and Prasetyo even before the ethics complaint.
April 15 (Wednesday): Faizal Assegaf, accompanied by his legal team, formally filed an ethics complaint against Budi Prasetyo with the KPK Supervisory Board (Dewas KPK). The complaint specifically requested Dewas to summon Prasetyo for an ethical review based on alleged violations of the code of ethics for KPK employees. This formal action, following his examination as a witness and his prior defamation report, signifies Assegaf’s determination to challenge Prasetyo’s conduct.

Official Responses and Legal Dynamics

Budi Prasetyo’s reaction to the ethics complaint has been one of calm assurance. He stated that he is "unconcerned" (tak ambil pusing) by Assegaf’s actions and expressed full confidence in the Dewas KPK, believing they will "objectively view and scrutinize the complaint from the public." Prasetyo emphasized that the KPK’s primary focus remains on completing the investigation into the Customs and Excise corruption case. This stance reflects a strategy to project unwavering commitment to their anti-corruption mandate, despite internal and external challenges to their personnel.

From Faizal Assegaf’s perspective, the ethics complaint to Dewas KPK and the prior defamation report to the police represent a multi-pronged legal offensive. While the exact details of the alleged ethical violations and defamation have not been fully disclosed in the original article, it can be inferred that Assegaf believes Prasetyo’s public statements or actions regarding his involvement as a witness have been inappropriate or damaging to his reputation. As a director of a private company, being publicly linked to a corruption investigation, even as a witness, can have severe professional and personal repercussions. His admission of receiving goods from a suspect further complicates his position, creating a delicate balance between cooperating with the investigation and protecting his own legal standing.

The Dewas KPK, upon receiving such a report, is mandated to conduct a preliminary review to determine if there are sufficient grounds for a full ethical investigation. Their process typically involves summoning the complainant, the reported party, and any relevant witnesses or evidence. The outcome could range from dismissing the complaint to issuing a warning, a reprimand, or even recommending more severe sanctions if a serious ethical breach is found. The Dewas KPK’s handling of this complaint will be closely watched, as it tests their impartiality and effectiveness in holding KPK officials accountable, a role that was central to the 2019 KPK Law revisions.

Similarly, the defamation report filed with Polda Metro Jaya will follow standard police procedures, involving an investigation into the merits of the complaint, potential interrogations, and eventual determination by prosecutors on whether to proceed with a formal charge. The parallel nature of these complaints—one internal (ethical) and one external (criminal)—against a KPK spokesperson adds layers of complexity to the unfolding situation.

Broader Implications and Analysis

This ongoing saga carries significant implications for Indonesia’s anti-corruption efforts and the public’s perception of the KPK.

Public Trust and KPK’s Credibility: Incidents where KPK officials face ethical or criminal complaints, particularly from individuals involved in KPK investigations, can erode public trust. The KPK’s effectiveness relies heavily on its perceived impartiality and integrity. Any suggestion of misconduct by its spokespersons, who are the public face of the institution, can damage its credibility.
The Role of Dewas KPK: This case serves as a crucial test for the Dewas KPK. Its ability to conduct an independent, objective, and transparent review of the complaint against Budi Prasetyo will either reinforce its legitimacy or further fuel criticisms regarding its independence and effectiveness as an oversight body. A perceived lack of action or a biased outcome could deepen skepticism about the 2019 KPK Law.
Challenges for Witnesses and Whistleblowers: The incident highlights the precarious position of witnesses in corruption cases. While their cooperation is vital for investigations, they can also become targets of scrutiny or, as in Assegaf’s case, feel aggrieved by the actions or statements of investigators or spokespersons. This situation underscores the need for clear guidelines on witness protection and the conduct of public officials in handling sensitive information.
Internal Dynamics of KPK: Such disputes can also reflect internal tensions or disagreements within the KPK, particularly concerning public communication strategies or the handling of high-profile cases. A spokesperson’s role is to represent the institution, and challenges to their conduct can ripple through the organization.
Rule of Law and Due Process: The parallel legal avenues pursued by Faizal Assegaf—an ethical complaint and a criminal defamation report—demonstrate the layers of legal recourse available in Indonesia. It emphasizes that even powerful anti-corruption officials are subject to accountability mechanisms, both internal and external, reflecting the broader principle of the rule of law.
The Fight Against Customs Corruption: Despite these internal challenges, the KPK’s continued focus on the Customs and Excise corruption case remains paramount. The success of this investigation, regardless of the outcome of the ethical complaint, is critical for demonstrating the KPK’s resolve in combating corruption in vital economic sectors and for recovering state assets.

In conclusion, Budi Prasetyo’s dismissive stance towards the ethics complaint, coupled with Faizal Assegaf’s multi-pronged legal actions, paints a picture of a complex and challenging environment for anti-corruption efforts in Indonesia. As the Dewas KPK prepares to scrutinize the ethical allegations and the police investigate the defamation claim, all eyes will be on how these parallel legal processes unfold and what implications they hold for the integrity and effectiveness of the nation’s premier anti-corruption agency. The outcome will undoubtedly contribute to the ongoing narrative surrounding the KPK’s post-2019 reforms and its enduring mission to eradicate corruption.

August 24, 2025 0 comment

National News

KPK Spokesperson Budi Prasetyo Faces Scrutiny After Being Reported to Supervisory Board by Activist Faizal Assegaf.

by Iffa Jayyana June 21, 2025

written by Iffa Jayyana

Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK) Spokesperson Budi Prasetyo has found himself at the center of an integrity inquiry, having been formally reported to the anti-graft agency’s internal Supervisory Board (Dewas). The report, lodged by prominent 1998 activist and Director of PT Sinkos Multimedia Mandiri, Faizal Assegaf, on Wednesday, April 15, 2026, marks a significant development in the ongoing public oversight of Indonesia’s crucial anti-corruption institution. Prasetyo, in his initial reaction, downplayed the necessity of a detailed response, expressing confidence in the Dewas’s objective review process. This incident highlights the persistent scrutiny faced by the KPK, an institution pivotal to Indonesia’s fight against corruption, and underscores the active role of civil society in demanding accountability from public officials, even those within integrity-focused bodies.

The Genesis of the Complaint: A Call for Accountability

The report to the KPK Supervisory Board is not an isolated incident but rather a progression of Faizal Assegaf’s efforts to seek accountability from Budi Prasetyo. Prior to taking his concerns to Dewas, Assegaf had already filed a complaint with the Jakarta Metropolitan Police (Polda Metro Jaya). While the specific details of the initial complaint to the police were not immediately elaborated upon in public statements, the subsequent report to Dewas strongly suggests that Assegaf’s concerns pertain to alleged ethical breaches or professional misconduct that fall within the Supervisory Board’s mandate. The decision to pursue a complaint through both a law enforcement agency and an internal oversight body indicates a comprehensive approach by the activist to ensure thorough investigation and potential redress.

Faizal Assegaf, a figure widely recognized for his involvement in the 1998 reform movement that led to the downfall of the New Order regime, has a long history of advocating for good governance, transparency, and justice. His activism has often involved challenging powerful figures and institutions, making his involvement in this case particularly noteworthy. As the Director of PT Sinkos Multimedia Mandiri, his professional background also adds another layer to his public persona, demonstrating a blend of business acumen and civic engagement. For Assegaf to formally lodge a complaint against a high-profile spokesperson of the KPK, an institution he, like many Indonesians, likely holds in high regard for its anti-corruption mission, signals a belief that the alleged conduct warrants serious investigation to uphold the KPK’s integrity.

Budi Prasetyo’s Stance and the Dewas’s Mandate

In response to the report, Budi Prasetyo adopted a reserved approach, stating, "Regarding that report, I feel it is no longer necessary for us to respond." He further elaborated on his trust in the independent review process, asserting, "I am confident that the KPK Supervisory Board will objectively analyze the report. I fully hand over the matter to Dewas." Prasetyo’s brief comments reflect a strategy of deferring to the established internal oversight mechanism, implicitly suggesting that any concerns raised will be fairly evaluated by the appropriate body. This stance is typical of officials facing such allegations, aiming to prevent further public speculation while allowing the formal process to unfold.

The Dewan Pengawas (Dewas) or Supervisory Board of the KPK was established in 2019 following amendments to the KPK Law. Its creation was a significant and, at times, controversial reform aimed at providing an internal check-and-balance mechanism for the anti-corruption agency. Dewas is tasked with overseeing the ethical conduct of KPK employees and officials, ensuring adherence to the institution’s code of ethics, and maintaining its integrity. Its powers include investigating alleged ethical violations, issuing recommendations, and imposing administrative sanctions if wrongdoing is found. The establishment of Dewas was intended to enhance accountability and public trust in the KPK, addressing criticisms that the agency previously lacked adequate internal oversight. Reports such as the one filed by Faizal Assegaf fall squarely within Dewas’s jurisdiction, triggering a formal review process that typically begins with an initial assessment of the complaint’s merit before proceeding to a full investigation if deemed necessary.

Chronology of Events Leading to the Dewas Report

The timeline of events highlights the methodical approach taken by Faizal Assegaf in pursuing his allegations:

Prior to April 15, 2026: Faizal Assegaf initiates his legal efforts by lodging a complaint against KPK Spokesperson Budi Prasetyo with the Jakarta Metropolitan Police (Polda Metro Jaya). The precise date of this initial report is not publicly disclosed but is confirmed to have occurred before the Dewas complaint. The nature of this initial police report likely involves allegations that could be considered criminal or civil in nature, separate from, but potentially overlapping with, ethical concerns.
Wednesday, April 15, 2026: Faizal Assegaf formally submits a report against Budi Prasetyo to the KPK Supervisory Board (Dewas). This action signifies an escalation or broadening of his complaint, targeting the internal ethical framework of the anti-corruption body. This dual approach suggests Assegaf is seeking both external (police) and internal (Dewas) scrutiny of Prasetyo’s conduct.
Immediately Following April 15, 2026: Budi Prasetyo issues a public statement acknowledging the report to Dewas. His response is characterized by a refusal to elaborate further on the specifics of the allegations, opting instead to place full confidence in the Dewas’s impartial investigation.
Subsequent Period: The Dewas is expected to commence its standard procedure for handling complaints. This typically involves an initial review to determine if the complaint meets the criteria for a formal investigation, followed by the gathering of evidence, interviews with involved parties, and eventually, a decision on whether any ethical violations have occurred.

This chronology underscores the seriousness with which such complaints are treated, both by the complainant and the institution’s internal oversight body. The parallel reporting to both police and Dewas indicates a multi-pronged legal strategy by Assegaf to ensure comprehensive examination of the alleged issues.

Broader Context: The Role of KPK and Public Scrutiny

The Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK) holds a unique and critical position in Indonesia’s governance landscape. Established in 2002, it was designed as an independent body with extraordinary powers to investigate and prosecute corruption, operating outside the traditional police and prosecutor’s offices. Its mandate includes prevention, investigation, prosecution, and monitoring of corruption offenses. Over the years, the KPK has earned a reputation for fearlessly pursuing high-profile corruption cases, often involving politicians, business leaders, and public officials, thereby becoming a symbol of hope for a cleaner Indonesia.

However, the KPK has also faced its share of challenges and controversies. Its independence and effectiveness have been subject to legislative changes, attempts at weakening its powers, and internal struggles. The very establishment of Dewas in 2019 was part of a larger legislative amendment that critics argued could compromise the KPK’s autonomy. Consequently, any report against a KPK official, particularly a spokesperson who represents the institution to the public, draws significant attention and can impact public trust in the agency’s own integrity.

The active role of civil society figures like Faizal Assegaf is vital in this ecosystem. Activists, non-governmental organizations, and the media serve as crucial watchdogs, holding state institutions accountable. When an anti-corruption body’s own officials face allegations, it is often civil society that steps forward to demand transparency and justice. This dynamic reinforces the principle that no institution, regardless of its noble mission, should be above scrutiny.

Potential Implications and Future Outlook

The report against Budi Prasetyo carries several potential implications, both for the individual involved and for the KPK as an institution.

For Budi Prasetyo: A formal investigation by Dewas could range from a minor inquiry to a comprehensive probe. If found guilty of ethical violations, potential sanctions could include written warnings, temporary suspension, or even dismissal, depending on the severity of the offense. Even if cleared, the process itself can be taxing and may temporarily impact his public duties or image.
For the KPK: This incident tests the efficacy and impartiality of the Dewas. A transparent and objective handling of the case by Dewas is crucial to reinforce public confidence in its role as an effective internal oversight body. Should the Dewas’s decision be perceived as biased or lacking rigor, it could further erode trust in the KPK and its internal accountability mechanisms. Furthermore, such reports, regardless of their outcome, can create internal pressure within the KPK, reminding all personnel of the high ethical standards expected of them.
For Public Trust: The KPK’s credibility rests heavily on its perceived integrity. Any allegation against its officials, especially its spokesperson, can cause public concern. A swift, fair, and transparent resolution to this matter by Dewas is paramount to maintaining public confidence in the KPK’s commitment to clean governance, not just externally but also internally. It demonstrates that the institution is willing to police itself.
Precedent and Future Accountability: This case could set a precedent for how future complaints against KPK officials are handled. It underscores the importance of a robust and independent Dewas, capable of effectively exercising its oversight functions without fear or favor. It also highlights the growing expectation from the Indonesian public and civil society for greater accountability from all public servants, especially those entrusted with safeguarding national integrity.

The resolution of Faizal Assegaf’s report against Budi Prasetyo will be closely watched by the public, media, and various stakeholders. It serves as a reminder that the fight against corruption is not only about prosecuting external perpetrators but also about ensuring the unimpeachable integrity of the institutions and individuals leading that charge. The ultimate outcome will reflect not just on Budi Prasetyo, but on the strength and resilience of Indonesia’s anti-corruption framework itself. The commitment of Dewas to an objective and thorough investigation will be key to upholding the principles of transparency and accountability that the KPK was founded upon.

June 21, 2025 0 comment

National News

Daftar Barbuk Kasus Bea Cukai yang Disita KPK dari Faizal Assegaf

by Nana May 18, 2025

written by Nana

Jakarta, Indonesia – The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has escalated its investigation into alleged corruption within the Directorate General of Customs and Excise, revealing the seizure of significant electronic evidence from Faizal Assegaf, the Chief Executive Officer of PT Sinkos Multimedia Mandiri. The seized items, which include an Apple Mac computer complete with its Magic Keyboard and Magic Mouse, a Lumix S5IIX mirrorless camera with spare batteries, a monitor, and a Boss WL-30XLR Wireless System microphone, are believed to be directly linked to the ongoing high-profile case. This development has not only intensified the probe but has also triggered a legal counter-offensive from Assegaf, who has filed reports against a KPK spokesperson for alleged defamation and ethical violations.

The seizure, confirmed by KPK spokesperson Budi Prasetyo on Wednesday, April 15, 2026, underscored the commission’s focus on digital footprints in its anti-corruption efforts. Speaking from the KPK office in Jakarta, Prasetyo stated, "The items seized by investigators are in the form of electronic goods such as a monitor, a camera, and several other electronic devices." He acknowledged that the total monetary value of the seized equipment had not yet been assessed, emphasizing that the primary objective was the potential evidential content rather than their market price. The nature of the seized items, particularly advanced computing and communication devices, suggests that investigators are pursuing digital trails that could reveal illicit transactions, communications, or hidden assets relevant to the bribery and gratification scheme.

Deep Dive into the Customs Corruption Nexus

Corruption within customs agencies is a perennial challenge globally, often involving complex networks that exploit vulnerabilities in international trade and border control. In Indonesia, the Directorate General of Customs and Excise (DJBC) plays a critical role in facilitating trade, collecting state revenue, and safeguarding national borders. This makes it a high-risk sector for corrupt practices, which can range from bribery for expedited services to sophisticated schemes involving under-invoicing, misdeclaration of goods, and facilitating the entry of prohibited items. Such corruption not only leads to significant losses in state revenue but also distorts fair competition, harms legitimate businesses, and can even pose national security risks by allowing the entry of dangerous goods.

The KPK’s involvement in this case highlights its unwavering commitment to dismantling such corrupt networks. Established in 2002, the KPK is an independent body with broad powers to investigate, prosecute, and prevent corruption. Its mandate includes conducting thorough investigations, often utilizing advanced forensic techniques, including the analysis of electronic evidence. The seizure of devices like the Apple Mac and Lumix S5IIX camera is indicative of a strategy to uncover digital records, encrypted communications, and potentially even hidden data that could shed light on the mechanics of the alleged corruption, the identities of other conspirators, and the flow of illicit funds. Modern digital forensics can retrieve deleted files, trace communication patterns, and link individuals to specific activities, making electronic devices invaluable in complex financial crimes.

Chronology of Events and Investigative Trajectory

The current phase of the investigation has been marked by a series of critical actions, culminating in the recent seizures and subsequent legal disputes.

April 7, 2026: Faizal Assegaf, CEO of PT Sinkos Multimedia Mandiri, was summoned by the KPK as a witness in the ongoing corruption probe concerning the Directorate General of Customs and Excise. Alongside Assegaf, two officials from the Directorate General of Customs and Excise, Muhammad Mahzun and Rahmat, were also called in for questioning on the same day. These summons were crucial steps in gathering witness testimonies to strengthen the case files against the already identified suspects.
April 15, 2026: KPK investigators conducted the seizure of electronic evidence from Faizal Assegaf. The operation targeted specific high-tech devices believed to contain data pertinent to the alleged corruption. KPK spokesperson Budi Prasetyo publicly confirmed the seizure, detailing the types of electronic items taken into custody and affirming their suspected relevance to the Bea Cukai corruption case.
Following April 15, 2026: In a swift and assertive response to the KPK’s actions and the public statement made by Budi Prasetyo, Faizal Assegaf initiated legal proceedings against the KPK spokesperson. He filed a report with the Polda Metro Jaya (Jakarta Metropolitan Police) alleging defamation. This report was officially registered under the number LP/B/2592/IV/2026/SPKT/POLDA METRO JAYA, indicating a formal criminal complaint.
Concurrent with Police Report: On the same day he reported Budi Prasetyo to the police, Faizal Assegaf also lodged a complaint with the KPK Supervisory Board (Dewas). This complaint accused Budi Prasetyo of violating the commission’s code of ethics, suggesting that the spokesperson’s public comments or the manner of the seizure itself may have overstepped ethical boundaries or compromised Assegaf’s reputation.

These events illustrate the increasingly contentious nature of high-profile corruption investigations, where subjects often employ legal avenues to challenge the actions of anti-corruption bodies.

The Network of Suspects and Allegations

The KPK’s investigation is focused on a group of seven individuals implicated in an alleged scheme of bribery and gratification related to the import of goods. This network includes both high-ranking customs officials and private sector operatives, indicating a sophisticated collusion designed to exploit the import process for personal gain.

The suspects who have been identified and subsequently detained at the KPK Detention Center include:

Rizal: Former Director of Investigation & Enforcement at the Directorate General of Customs and Excise, serving from 2024 to January 2026. His senior position suggests a potential role in overseeing or facilitating illicit activities within the enforcement arm of the DJBC.
Sisprian Subiaksono: Head of the Sub-directorate of Intelligence, Enforcement, and Investigation (Kasubdit Intel P2 DJBC). Individuals in intelligence roles often possess crucial information and control over surveillance, making their involvement particularly damaging to institutional integrity.
Orlando: Head of the Intelligence Section at the Directorate General of Customs and Excise (Kasi Intel DJBC). Similar to Subiaksono, Orlando’s position would grant him access to sensitive information and influence over investigative processes.
Andri: Head of the Import Document Team at PT Blueray. His role within the private company would be critical in manipulating import documentation, a common method for evading taxes or importing prohibited goods.
Budiman Bayu Prasojo: A mid-level official within the Directorate General of Customs and Excise. The involvement of officials at various levels points to a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents.
John Field: Owner of PT Blueray. As the principal of the company, Field would likely be the ultimate beneficiary and orchestrator of any corporate-level corrupt practices.
Dedy Kurniawan: Operational Manager of PT Blueray. Kurniawan’s role would involve the day-to-day execution of import operations, potentially including the implementation of corrupt schemes.

The fact that the case files for the suspects from PT Blueray have already been handed over to the Public Prosecutor indicates that the investigative phase for this segment of the case is nearing completion, paving the way for prosecution. This move signifies the KPK’s confidence in the evidence gathered against the private sector actors involved.

Daftar Barbuk Kasus Bea Cukai yang Disita KPK dari Faizal Assegaf

Legal Challenges and Institutional Integrity

Faizal Assegaf’s decision to file a defamation report against KPK spokesperson Budi Prasetyo with the police, and an ethics complaint with the KPK Supervisory Board (Dewas), introduces a layer of complexity to the ongoing investigation. Such counter-reports are not uncommon in high-profile corruption cases in Indonesia, often serving as a tactic to exert pressure on investigators, discredit their findings, or divert public attention.

The defamation charge will require police to investigate whether Budi Prasetyo’s public statements met the legal criteria for defamation, which typically involves false statements that harm a person’s reputation. KPK spokespersons operate under a mandate to inform the public about ongoing investigations, balancing transparency with the presumption of innocence. The legal precedent for such cases often hinges on whether the statements were made in good faith, based on investigative findings, and were necessary for public disclosure.

Simultaneously, the ethics complaint lodged with Dewas places the KPK’s internal oversight body in a position to review the conduct of its own official. Dewas was established as part of amendments to the KPK Law, aimed at ensuring accountability and ethical conduct within the commission itself. An investigation by Dewas would examine whether Prasetyo’s actions or statements violated internal codes of conduct, potentially affecting the integrity of the institution and public trust. While Dewas’s primary role is to enforce ethical standards, its findings can have significant implications for the careers of KPK officials and the public perception of the commission’s impartiality.

These legal challenges underscore the delicate balance anti-corruption agencies must maintain between robust investigation and adherence to legal and ethical norms. They also highlight the constant scrutiny and pressure faced by KPK officials, who are frequently targeted by those they investigate.

Broader Implications and Future Outlook

This ongoing investigation into the Directorate General of Customs and Excise, coupled with the legal challenges against the KPK spokesperson, carries significant implications for Indonesia’s anti-corruption landscape.

Firstly, for the Directorate General of Customs and Excise, the exposure of a corruption network involving senior officials necessitates a thorough internal overhaul. It reinforces the need for continuous reforms, enhanced transparency, and stricter oversight mechanisms to prevent future abuses. The government has consistently emphasized improving governance and reducing bureaucracy in crucial sectors like customs to boost investor confidence and economic growth. This case serves as a stark reminder of the persistent challenges in achieving those goals.

Secondly, for the KPK, the case tests its resilience and independence. The counter-reports from Faizal Assegaf will undoubtedly consume resources and attention, but they also offer an opportunity for the KPK to demonstrate its commitment to due process while steadfastly pursuing justice. How the police and Dewas handle these complaints will be closely watched, as their outcomes could influence future interactions between the KPK and subjects of its investigations. A strong, principled stance from the KPK, backed by robust evidence and adherence to ethical guidelines, is crucial for maintaining public trust in its vital mission.

Finally, the case resonates with broader societal implications regarding the rule of law and the fight against impunity. Corruption, particularly in high-value sectors like international trade, erodes public finances, undermines fair economic competition, and ultimately hinders national development. The successful prosecution of individuals involved in such schemes sends a powerful message that no one is above the law, irrespective of their position or influence.

As the investigation progresses and the legal battles unfold, the public will be keenly observing how Indonesia’s institutions navigate these complex challenges. The outcome of this case will not only determine the fate of the accused but will also significantly shape the trajectory of anti-corruption efforts in the country for years to come.

May 18, 2025 0 comment