Contextualization of the Concept of Fraud Victimization for the Crime of Fraud in Trade Activities Indonesia – China (Victimization Study from the Perspective of Indonesian Exporters)

This study aims to examine fraud cases in Indonesia-China trade relations from the point of view of the Indonesian exporters as victims. Empirically and theoretically, the research focuses on gaps in trade relations that trigger the victimization of Indonesian exporters and seeks to uncover economic, political, legal, and cultural asymmetries in accordance with the stages and typology of fraud victimization initiated by Michael Levi (2009). This study contextualizes fraud victimization on the phenomenon of criminogenic asymmetries in Indonesia-China trade relations. The study uses a qualitative approach with an explanatory method, while the data analysis uses a triangulation technique. The results of the study reveal several essential things. First, the victimization cases of Indonesian exporters occur because of the existence of non-legal route options in trade with China that puts the exporters in the category of diffuse victimization. This option is available because it is a rational choice of cost-effective, duty-free, and with no licensing. It is even more dramatic when the government and law enforcement commit victim blaming, then see cases of default as negligence, not fraud. Second, there is a lack of coordination between international trade stakeholders in Indonesia, creating difficulties in assisting entrepreneurs’ processes, especially if the exporters become victims of fraud. Third, the role of groups of perpetrators of organized fraud exists by using the guise of business in Indonesia-China trade relations. Fourth, the fraud victimization experienced by Indonesian exporters is inseparable from the existence of asymmetric criminogenic factors, namely the legal system, technology, knowledge, and culture between the two countries. Fifth, there are empirical and theoretical differences and gaps related to the contextualization of Levi's concept of fraud victimization when placed within the framework of criminogenic asymmetries in the Indonesia-China trade case. This gap is due to the occurence of three export routes that significantly affect the concept of victimization typology