logo-ahplogo-ahplogo-ahplogo-ahp
  • Home
  • Firm
    • About Us
    • Careers
    • Linked Stream
  • Solutions
      • Anticorruption & Good Corporate Governance
      • Banking & Finance
      • Capital Markets
      • Competition Law
      • Debt & Corporate Restructuring
      • Dispute Resolution
      • Energy, Oil & Gas
      • Foreign Direct Investment
      • Fraud & Forensics Investigation
      • Intellectual Property
      • Islamic Finance
      • Labor Law
      • Mergers & Acquisitions
      • Projects & Natural Resources
      • Real Property
      • Shipping & Aviation
      • Tax & Customs Services
      • Telecommunications & Media
  • Members
  • Events
    • News & Insights
  • Rajah Tann Asia
✕
            No results See all results

            Civil Servants and Corruption: how promising something to a civil servant can constitute an act of corruption

            Corruption is commonly associated with financial loss to the state. However, this interpretation can be misleading as the concept of corruption under the Indonesian anti-corruption law (“Anti-Corruption Law”) encompasses a far broader range of conduct than only activity that leads to state loss. The Anti-Corruption law formulates 30 types of action that may be deemed as corrupt, which can be divided into the following seven categories:

            1. corruption related to state financial loss;
            2. bribery;
            3. malfeasance;
            4. extortion;
            5. tort;
            6. conflict of interest in procurement; and
            7. gratification payments.

            In this alert we focus on bribery and gratification payments made to civil servants.

            Who can be liable?

            Under the Anti-Corruption Law, the following parties can be held criminally liable for bribery or making gratification payments:

            1. any person (whether an individual or a corporation) who offers a bribe/gratification payment; and
            2. any civil servant / state administrator who receives a bribe/gratification payment.

            The Anti-Corruption law defines ‘civil servant / state administrator’ broadly, and includes directors, commissioners and other officials of state-owned enterprises and regional government-owned enterprises.

            Promises as a form of bribery/gratification

            Pursuant to the Anti-Corruption Law, one element that must be proven to establish a bribery/gratification payment offence is the “giving or promising of something” by the giver and “accepting gifts or promises” by the recipient. What we need to remember is that both promising something, and accepting a promise, constitutes an act of corruption.

            Unfortunately, the Anti-Corruption Law does not define what is meant by “something”, “promises”, or “accepting promises”. In other words, pursuant to the Anti-Corruption Law, things and promises in any form that are given to, or received by, any official could constitute corruption.

            Illustration

            Let’s consider the following illustration:

            Mr. X is a director of a company that just received a financial sanction for breaching the regulation relating to waste management of hazardous materials. He requests a meeting with officials at the Ministry of the Environment to discuss the sanction. The following conversation takes place during this meeting:

            Mr. X: “Sir, if you revoke the sanction for my company, then I will give you one million Rupiah in cash.”
            In this situation, the official can respond in one of the following ways:

            1. “Ok sir, thank you.”
            2. “Oh, we can revoke that sanction quite easily.”
            3. (Refrain from answering).

            If the conversation above happened between Mr. X (a private citizen) and an official, then Mr. X’s action of promising something to the official will be considered as an act of corruption.

            The question is, what action should the official take when faced with the above situation in order to avoid liability under the Anti-Corruption Law? Should the official choose between responses (i), (ii), or (iii)?

            The absence of a definition for “accepting promises” under the Anti-Corruption Law forces us to interpret “accepting promises” based on its grammatical construction. Indeed, by refraining from defining “accepting promises,” the Anti-Corruption Law seems to indicate that “accepting promises” should be interpreted in the context of the commonly accepted definition of the terms. The leading Indonesian language dictionary (KBBI) defines “accept” as:

            1. to welcome; to take (obtain, accommodate, etc.) something that is given, delivered, and the like.
            2. to ratify; to justify; to approve (a proposal, suggestion, etc.); to pass or grant (requests and the like).

            From the above KBBI definition, because the act of “approving” or even “justifying” can be considered as an act of “accepting”, then under the Anti-Corruption Law, the official should not respond to Mr. X with responses (i), (ii), or (iii). Therefore, the only response that is appropriate for an official faced with the above situation is to express their rejection explicitly.

            In relation to this matter, Chandra M. Hamzah, the Head of the Dispute Practice Group at Assegaf Hamzah & Partners, considers that when faced with a similar situation, officials should note that:

            1. All official matters related to the official’s position should only be discussed in an official capacity and conducted at an official location.
            2. The Official should avoid attending any meeting alone, without being accompanied by another person occupying an equivalent or similar position to himself/herself.
            3. If there is any indication of a promise being given, an official must immediately express his/her rejection clearly and explicitly.
            4. The official must immediately report any indication of the giving of a promise to a direct employer or supervisor at the first opportunity (e.g. the board of directors report to the board of commissioners).

            If you have any queries regarding the above, please contact our senior partner Chandra M. Hamzah: chandra.hamzah@ahp.id

            ***

            AHP Client Alert is a publication of Assegaf Hamzah & Partners. It brings an overview of selected Indonesian laws and regulations to the attention of clients but is not intended to be viewed or relied upon as legal advice. Clients should seek advice of qualified Indonesian legal practitioners with respect to the precise effect of the laws and regulations referred to in AHP Client Alert. Whilst care has been taken in the preparation of  AHP  Client Alert, no warranty is given as to the accuracy of the information it contains and no liability is accepted for any statement, opinion, error or omission.

            More Articles

            • OJK Announced Guidelines to Implement Offerings Classified as Non-Public Offerings
              February 7, 2023
            • Regional Trade Highlights 2022
              January 30, 2023
            • Indonesia Expands Its Anti-Tax-Avoidance Measures: A Development to be Aware of in Tax Planning and Compliance
              January 27, 2023
            • Dissecting the Amendment to the Omnibus Law: Which Sectors are Affected and How?
              January 20, 2023
            • A New Rule Requires Importers of Software or Other Digital Products via Electronic Transmission to Fulfil Customs Obligations
              January 16, 2023
            • Rajah & Tann Asia Member Firms, Members of Lifesciences Asia-Pacific Network (LAN), Contribute to the Singapore and Indonesia Chapters of Comparative Study: Patent Linkage Systems in APAC
              January 13, 2023
            • Indonesia’s New Criminal Code Introduces Corporate Crime
              January 4, 2023
            • A Practical Guide to Getting Your Organisation PDP Law-Ready
              December 1, 2022
            • Shipping Law Updates
              November 16, 2022
            • Arb-Med-Arb: An Effort to Enhance Amicable Dispute Resolution
              September 30, 2022
            By Practice Area
            • Projects & Energy
            • Technology Media & Telecommunications
            • Intellectual Property
            • Real Property
            • Banking & Finance
            • Capital Markets
            • Competition
            • Mergers & Acquisitions
            • Dispute Resolution
            • Tax and Customs

            Jakarta Office

            Capital Place, Level 36 & 37
            Jalan Jenderal Gatot Subroto Kav. 18
            Jakarta 12710,
            Indonesia

            Phone: +62 21 2555 7800
            Fax: +62 21 2555 7899
            Email: info@ahp.id


            Subcribe

            Surabaya Office

            Pakuwon Center, Superblok Tunjungan City
            Lantai 11, Unit 08
            Jalan Embong Malang No. 1, 3, 5,
            Surabaya 60261
            Indonesia

            Phone: +62 31 5116 4550
            Fax: +62 31 5116 4560

            Assegaf Hamzah & Partners


            © 2001 - 2022 Assegaf Hamzah & Partners. All rights reserved.

            Rajah & Tann Asia is a network of legal practices based in Asia.

            Member firms are independently constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local legal requirements. Services provided by a member firm are governed by the terms of engagement between the member firm and the client.

            This website is solely intended to provide general information and does not provide any advice or create any relationship, whether legally binding or otherwise. Rajah & Tann Asia and its member firms do not accept, and fully disclaim, responsibility for any loss or damage which may result from accessing or relying on this website.