CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS FOR ILLICIT ENRICHMENT: COMPARING APPROACHES OF THE USE OF INDIRECT METHODS OF PROOF IN INVESTIGATING ILLICIT ENRICHMENT IN INDONESIA AND THE U.S.

In recent years, the international community has come to recognize the power of investigating illicit enrichment for uncovering corrupt offenses. The Inter-American Convention Against Corruption (IACAC) and the United Nation Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) are two international conventions that address the issue of illicit enrichment. berita internasional in Indonesia, as a signatory of the UNCAC, does not criminalize illicit enrichment as the UNCAC recommends, but it does require public officials to submit financial disclosures, which may be used by the Indonesian Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) to strengthen the evidence in corruption prosecutions. This system has not worked, however, because there is no criminal or civil prosecution for failing to file financial disclosures, or for giving false statements within those disclosures; further, there is no specific methods of proof to use in investigations. As a result, there has been significant debate over whether Indonesia should criminalize illicit enrichment, consistent with the recommendation of the UNCAC. Part of the debate centers on concerns about the rights of defendants and the threat of individual rights regarding presumption of innocence. Drawing from the U.S. approach to investigations in tax evasion and financial disclosure cases, this paper recommends that Indonesia avoid criminalizing illicit enrichment, and instead establish civil and criminal prosecution of financial disclosure system for fail to file and give false information, and incorporate indirect methods of proof for illicit enrichment investigation that may find evidence to strengthen corruption prosecutions