EFFECTIVE INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN COMBATINGCORRUPTION: INDONESIA’S EXPERIENCE
Mahayu Dian Suryandari *I. BACKGROUND: NATIONAL POLICY ON COMBATING CORRUPTION:
ALL HANDS-ON DECK APPROACH
Indonesia's positive law has regulated the eradication of corruption since 1957. The
provisions in the Criminal Code, which are a legacy of the Dutch East Indies colonial era,
forbid embezzlement and fraud committed by state officials. However, in particular, thecriminalization of corruption began with the Regulation of the Military Authority of the
Army and Navy Number Prt/PM/06/1957 on 9 April 1957 during the reign of President
Soekarno. This regulation was intended to overcome corruption that was rampant at thattime. Through this regulation, for the first time the term of “corruption” was recognized innational legal regulations because the Criminal Code was not able to tackle the spread of
corruption.
Political policies in eradicating corruption from time to time can be divided into two
categories, namely the New Order era and the Reform era. During the New Order era,several regulations were issued in the context of eradicating corruption, namely:
1. Presidential Decree No. 228 of 1967 on Establishment of Corruption Eradication
Team on 2 December 1967.
2. Presidential Decree No. 12 of 1970 on Establishment of Commission Four on 31
January 1970.
3. Presidential Decree No. 13/1970 on the Appointment of Dr. Mohammad Hatta as
Presidential Advisor in Corruption Eradication Sector on 31 January 1970.
4. Law No. 3 of 1971 on Eradication of Corruption on 29 March 1971.
In the New Order era, prior to the enactment of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal
Procedure Code, the Attorney General’s Office of the Republic of Indonesia was the onlyState institution which had power to conduct pre-investigation, investigation andprosecution of corruption. After the enactment of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal
Procedure Code, the State also gave Indonesian National Police the authority to conduct
pre-investigation and investigation of corruption cases apart from the Attorney General’s
Office of the Republic of Indonesia.
In the Reform era, learning from the experience during the New Order, this era
responded more quickly to the demands for eradicating corruption, collusion and nepotism
by issuing more laws and regulations related to eradicating corruption. These regulations
include:*Prosecutor and Head of Legal Cooperation and Foreign Relations, Attorney General’s Office, Indonesia.

- 57 -- 59 -

1. Law No. 28 of 1999 on Implementation of a State that is Clean and Free from
Corruption, Collusion and Nepotism, ratified and promulgated on 19 May 1999.
2. Law No. 31 of 1999 on Eradication of Corruption, ratified and promulgated on
16 August 1999.
3. Law No. 20 of 2001 on Amendment to Law No. 31 of 1999 on Eradication of
Corruption, ratified and promulgated on 21 November 2001.
4. Law No. 30 of 2002 on Corruption Eradication Commission, ratified andpromulgated on 27 December 2002.
5. Law No. 15 of 2002 on Combating Money Laundering and its amendment with
Law No. 8 of 2010 on the Amendment of the Law on Combating Money
Laundering.
6. Law No. 7 of 2006 on Ratification of the United Nations Convention Against
Corruption, 2003, ratified and promulgated on 18 April 2006.
7. Law No. 46 of 2009 on Court of Corruption, ratified and promulgated on 29
October 2009.
Indonesia classifies corruption as a serious crime. The commitment to eradicate thiscrime is so serious that the country applies many extraordinary approaches towards thiscrime, such as by handling it in a multi-agency manner. Through Law Number 30 of 2002
on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), the KPK was born and tasked withcarrying out pre-investigation, investigation and prosecution of corruption in Indonesia.
Thus, since 2002, there have been three authorities to conduct pre-investigation andinvestigation of corruption in Indonesia, i.e., the Indonesian National Police (the INP), theAttorney General’s Office of Indonesia (AGO of Indonesia), and the Corruption
Eradication Commission (KPK). On the other hand, the state authority to prosecutecorruption is only given to the Attorney General, which is exercised by the prosecutors
working at the AGO of Indonesia or the prosecutors assigned to the KPK. The
establishment of the KPK adds strength to the chain of integrated criminal justice systems
in handling corruption.
Consequently, in order to govern the repressive action against corruption by optimizing
the target numbers of investigation, which is conducted by the three authorities effectively
and without overlapping, the Law provides a mandate for the KPK to handle corruption
cases with the following qualifications:a. involving law enforcement officers, state administrators, and other people who are
related to corruption cases committed by law enforcement officers or stateadministrators;
b. receive attention that is troubling to the public; and/or
c. concerning state losses of at least Rp. 1.000.000.000,00 (one billion rupiah, orapproximately USD 69,500).

- 58 -- 60 -

The INP and the AGO may handle other corruption cases.
As a result of this multi-agency approach to combating corruption crime, the numberof cases has increased. This suggests that there has been a significant rise in the awarenessof the community concerning corruption crimes. Until the end of 2020, the Annual Reportof the KPK 2020 described that the Indonesian National Police has investigated 286
corruption cases, the KPK has 114 investigations and the AGO has 444 investigations. 1
The number of investigations by the AGO itself increased significantly in the period fromJanuary 2020 to November 2021 with a total 2,416 corruption cases investigated all over
the offices of the AGO Indonesia. 2This achievement of repressive action also came with achievement in view ofrecovering the state loss from corruption. In the period from January 2020 to November
2021, the AGO has succeeded in recovering state losses amounting to USD$ 1.3 billion. In
the same period of time, the KPK achieved the recovery of assets amounting to USD$ 5.9
million.
Apart from the roles of law enforcement institutions, the multi-agency approach ineradicating corruption also involves a financial intelligence unit, namely the Financial
Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (PPATK), which was established in 2002. The
institution plays its role in financial intelligence and investigation with the special mission
to prevent money-laundering through detection and analysis of suspicious transactions in
the financial system.
II. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION: FORMAL VS. INFORMAL
Indonesia is committed – and has actively contributed – to the efforts of theinternational community to prevent and eradicate corruption, becoming party to the United
Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) on 18 December 2003 and passing theConvention through Law No. 7 of 2006 on Ratification of UNCAC. This international legal
instrument is very much needed to bridge different legal systems and at the same time
promote effective methods of eradication of corruption.
In line with the spirit of eradicating corruption completely, which must be interpreted
not only as success in capturing and entangling the perpetrators with crimes according totheir actions, but also success in recovering state losses due to the corruption they
committed, cooperation either done formally or informally is one of the vital tools to ensure
this goal is achieved. It has become a universal concern that corruption crimes, particularly
the high-profile corruption, involves multiple jurisdictions. And thus, understanding how
we could perform as a team in the international fora has become a necessary strategy.
And again, as a part of our commitment to support international efforts in combating
corruption and to avoid impunity, Indonesia would gladly cooperate both formally or
informally. Each method can be complementary to the other. However, when we encountera question of what is the most effective platform for international cooperation to be applied

1
2

Laporan Tahunan KPK, 2020 (https://www.kpk.go.id/images/pdf/Laporan_Tahunan_KPK_2020.pdf).
Booklet Capaian Kinerja 2 Tahun Jaksa Agung Republik Indonesia.

- 59 -- 61 -

in handling a case involving a foreign jurisdiction, there are at least two main
considerations:
1. The principle of fast, simple and low-cost justice; and2. The admissibility of evidence obtained as a result of cross-jurisdictional
cooperation.
As for the first consideration, i.e., to maintain fast, simple and low-cost justice, theprinciple is clearly stated in Article 2, paragraph (4), of Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial
Power. Fast, which is universal in nature, relates to a completion time that is not protracted.
This principle is known as the “justice delayed, justice denied" doctrine, meaning that aslow judicial process will not provide justice to the parties. Simple means that theexamination and settlement of cases are carried out in an efficient and effective manner.
Low cost means that the cost of the litigation process must be efficient and affordable forthe community.
The second consideration, admissibility, in general, meaning that the evidence must be
relevant or have probative value and must not be outweighed by counteracting
considerations. 3 Some countries require that the three “R's” should be considered whenanalysing the introduction of evidence. Is the evidence Relevant? Is it Reliable? And is it
Right to admit the evidence? Only relevant evidence is admissible, but not all relevant
evidence is admissible. Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact moreor less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequencein determining the action. 4 Competent and reliable evidence generally consists of tests,
analyses, research, studies, or other evidence that: (a) is based on the experience ofprofessionals in the relevant area; (b) has been conducted and evaluated in an objective
manner by persons qualified to do so; and (c) uses procedures generally accepted in theprofession to produce accurate and reliable results. 5 Accordingly, in some countries thecourt would not accept a defendant who surrendered by so called “informal” mechanism of
surrender (or non-extradition mechanism), such as deportation, hand-over or repatriation,
to be presented at the trial proceeding.
However, that has not been the case in Indonesia. The rules of evidence applied inIndonesia is the Negatief wettelijk bewijs theory (Article 183 Procedural Code) or a proof
system, which is a combination of Positive wettelijk bewijs theory (legislation based); andconviction rationale (legal reasoning). Based on the legislation, namely Article 184 of theProcedural Code, the evidence shall consist of 4 (four) legal instruments of proof, namely:
witness' testimony, expert's opinion, letters/written document/s, and/or defendant/s'
statement. Furthermore, the Procedural Code requires not merely a fulfilment of at least 2(two) instruments of proof as evidence, but also the judges being convinced by their legal
reasoning. However, the Procedural Code does not explicitly prescribe how to present thesaid evidence. It is the duty of the prosecutors to convince the judges that the evidence
presented before the court has been obtained by lawful means and consistent with thevarious provisions of the applicable laws and regulations.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/admissible_evidence
Federal Rule of Evidence, Article IV, Rule 401 Test for Relevant Evidence(https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_401)
5
https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/competent-and-reliable-evidence
34- 60 -- 62 -

Having said that, the crime control model and due process must both be considered. In
view of avoiding impunity and ensuring that all criminals are brought to justice, the crime
control model tends to prevail. Therefore, a defendant who had become a fugitive ofInterpol and later surrendered to Indonesia by any means other than extradition as a formal
mechanism shall be admissible to the Indonesian court. This principle, to the extent offulfilling positive laws, has also been similarly put into MLA practices. As long as noprovisions of the Procedural Code or the MLA Law have been breached, and the evidence
could be admissible in both the requesting and requested countries, Indonesia would be
able to render assistance informally, or without going through the formal mechanism of
MLA or extradition. Such assistance could be rendered by using the equivalent agency-toagency platform. There have been many practices in regard to the mechanism, and some ofthem will be discussed in the section on informal cooperation.
A. Formal Cooperation
The formal cooperation mechanism in the field of law enforcement includes mutual
assistance in criminal matters (MLA) and extradition. Indonesia is a non-treaty-based
country, meaning that Indonesian law accommodates requests for extradition and MLA,
both for countries that have treaties with Indonesia and those that do not. Therefore,
Indonesia has a strong record of international cooperation and tends to follow up on
requests for extradition and MLA from abroad rather than making requests to foreign
jurisdiction for the purpose prosecution or execution of criminal cases.
1. Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters
Mutual legal assistance in criminal matters as a tool of conducting trans-bordercooperation in Indonesia is based on: 1) The United Nations Convention Against
Corruption (UNCAC); 2) the United Nations Convention on Transnational Organized
Crime (UNTOC); and 3) Law Number 1 of 2006 on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters(MLA Law). Since 2006, Indonesia has signed bilateral MLA treaties with ninejurisdictions, i.e., Australia, China, Korea, Hong Kong, India, Switzerland, UEA, Iran andViet Nam, and a multilateral treaty called the ASEAN MLAT (ASEAN MLA Treaty).
However, since Indonesia can also entertain non-treaty partners, it has assisted morecountries than those. Since the stipulation of the MLA Law in 2006, Indonesia has received
300 incoming requests and sent 80 outgoing requests.
2. Grounds for Refusal
A request for assistance shall be refused if it 1) relates to investigation, prosecution or
examination before the court, or punishment of a person that is alleged to have committeda crime of a political nature, except a crime or attempted crime against the life of the Headof State, terrorism or have committed a crime under military law; 2) is deemed ne Bis in
Idem (double jeopardy); 3) is a non-prosecutable crime; 4) is made for prosecuting or
bringing a person to justice based on discrimination (race, gender, religion, citizenship,
political views). These refusal grounds should be considered as mandatory. On the other
hand, dual criminality is not considered as a mandatory condition for a request. Instead,this would fall under a discretionary consideration, which at least depends on thereciprocity principle.
3. Types of AssistanceBased on the MLA Law, Indonesia is able to provide mutual assistance for thefollowing purposes: identifying and/or locating a person; obtaining statements or otherforms thereof; providing documents or other forms thereof; making arrangements for- 61 -- 63 -

person to provide a statement or to assist in the investigation; delivering letters; executing
search warrants and seizures; recovery of fines or other penalties in respect of the crime;
restraining, freezing and confiscating property; as well as locating property that may berecovered or may be needed to satisfy the fines or penalties imposed.
4. MLA Request Procedure: Central Authority, Competent Authorities and the Content of
the Request
According to the MLA Law, any foreign country may convey its request for assistanceto the Government of the Republic of Indonesia. The request may be addressed directly tothe central authority or via the diplomatic channel. The central authority for transmitting
and transferring an MLA request is the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, while theexecuting or competent authorities are the Indonesian National Police and the Attorney
General Office – both institutions are the mandated authorities to execute any incoming
requests from foreign jurisdictions. Article 29 of the MLA Law provides that any incoming
request from foreign jurisdictions shall be conveyed by the Minister (read: Ministry of Law
and Human Rights) to the Head of INP or to the Attorney General for execution.
The execution of requests works due to each institution’s duties and functions. For
general crimes, for example, any request conveyed for prosecution or court examination
purposes must be transmitted by the central authority to the Attorney General’s Office,since it is the only institution authorized to prosecute. As for requests related to corruption
crimes, because the AGO is authorized to conduct pre-investigation, investigation andprosecution of corruption crimes, MLA requests on corruption should be transmitted to the
AGO for execution.
The request must include the purpose and description of the assistance needed, the nameof the agency and official conducting the investigation, prosecution or court examination
related to the request, a description of the crime, case settlement phase, relevant statutory
provisions, a description of any sanctions imposed, the time limit for carrying out therequest, the details of specific procedures or requirements desired to be complied with, and,
if any, confidentiality requirements and the reasons therefor. Or if the request is to executea judgment, it shall include the relevant judgment and information establishing that such
judgment is final and binding.
In order to optimize the process, working groups are often conducted to bridge
communication and to build adequate understanding of the case upon request.
5. Best Practices for Formal Cooperation(a) Outgoing request to Australia – assistance provided in a timely manner
An example of an outgoing request from Indonesia is an MLA request to thegovernment of Australia. The request was to have witnesses and an expert come before thecourt hearing of a “famous” murder case – the cyanide case (defendant’s name: Jessica
Kumolo Wongso) to give testimony and an expert opinion. The murder took place inJakarta, Indonesia, but testimony from the witnesses was needed because the defendant
spent some years living in Australia and there were some events related to the crime that
occurred in Australia during her stay there.
The cooperation started with a series of informal communications and coordination
between the AGO of Indonesia and the AGD of Australia via its resident legal advisor in
Jakarta. Then the formal request was submitted through the central authority. The- 62 -- 64 -

summoned witnesses and expert appeared at the trial proceeding on the scheduled date, andthis was a success story of MLA in supporting prosecution in a timely manner.
(b) Incoming request from Hong Kong – double track cooperation
Another example was the assistance to the government of Hong Kong SAR to provide
witness attendance and testimony in the embezzlement case of Mathias Hubert Marie
Echene. This is an example of double track assistance from Indonesia to Hong Kong. Mr.
Echene, a citizen of France, was alleged to have committed embezzlement in Hong Kongand fled to Indonesia. There were many victims who resided in Hong Kong as well as threevictims from Indonesia. The Hong Kong authority sent an extradition request to Indonesia
to have Mr. Echene prosecuted in Hong Kong. Although, Indonesia could prosecute thecase because some victims and a few events also had been committed in Indonesia, it
decided to surrender him for prosecution in Hong Kong because more evidence found inHong Kong.
After the prosecutor initiated the extradition proceeding, the court granted his
extradition. This decision was approved by the President of the Republic of Indonesia by
issuing a Presidential Decree to extradite Mr. Echene to Hong Kong.
Mr. Echene was extradited to Hong Kong in 2020. Afterwards, the Hong Kong
authority sent an MLA request to Indonesia asking to have witnesses appear and testify at
the trial in Hong Kong. Yet, because the MLA request was received during the pandemic(January 2021), Indonesia rendered the assistance by providing online witness testimony
via video conference.
(c) Request from the Royal Thai authority
Another example of an incoming request was from the Royal Thai authority to provide
documents on customs duties. This was preceded by informal cooperation between the
AGO of Thailand and the AGO of Indonesia. Good communication has been maintained
under a 2013 Memorandum of Understanding between the two offices (Prosecutor toProsecutor). After successfully rendering information informally to the AGO of Thailand
on the subject matter and using the documents for pre-investigation purposes, Thailand sentan MLA request to obtain the documents formally to be presented as evidence before thecourt.
6. Extradition
The practice of extradition in Indonesia is based on:
1. The United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC);
2. The United Nations Convention on Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC);
3. Law Number 1/1979 on Extradition;
4. Treaties.
(a) Treaties on extradition between Indonesia and other jurisdictions
To date, Indonesia has six treaties on extradition – with Malaysia, the Philippines,
Thailand, Australia, Hong Kong and South Korea. Since Indonesia is a non-treaty-based
country, Indonesia would follow up on extradition requests from countries whether or not- 63 -- 65 -

they have a treaty with Indonesia. Statistically, Indonesia has followed up on more requests
from non-treaty countries than those which have a treaty with us.
(b) Extradition proceedings
Any country is welcome to request extradition of a fugitive to Indonesia, regardless of
having a treaty with Indonesia. This rule is provided by the Extradition Law Number 1 of1979 (the Extradition Law). According to the Law, the extradition process in Indonesia
consists of judicial and executive proceedings, because it involves judicial examination ofcertain conditions such as dual criminality, the rule of specialty, double jeopardy as well as
prosecution guarantees from the requesting country. This compliance is pre-examined by
the AGO. Upon completion, the prosecutor shall make a legal Note upon the request fileand present it before the court together with all the supplementary documents of theextradition request to be cross examined.
For a non-treaty partner, the process shall begin with clearance from the Head of theGovernment (the President). This preliminary test considers opinions from the Attorney
General, the Ministry Foreign Affairs and the Head of the Indonesian National Police on
aspects relevant to duties and function of the three institutions. For treaty partner, this test
would not be applied.
Requests may be addressed directly to the central authority or may go throughdiplomatic channels.
The Extradition Law provides that incoming and outgoing requests shall be received by
the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). However, Indonesia no longer has a Ministry of Justice.
Judicial authority is held by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia. There is also
the Attorney General’s Office as the standing judiciary. However, in the absence of the
MoJ, the Ministry of Law and Human Rights plays the role of transmitting and transferring
extradition requests to the competent authorities and to the President of the Republic ofIndonesia.
The final decision on extradition is granted by a Presidential Decree.
B. Informal Cooperation
Formal cooperation mechanisms that include MLA or extradition require a fairly timeconsuming process because the mechanisms involve a judiciary process at every stage inwhich the officers will ensure that the documents provided or processes are valid and will
not be doubted as evidence in court in the country applying for assistance. Therefore, earlycommunication with an equivalent stakeholder at the requesting country would be essential.
Cooperation is carried out through informal networking or by agency-to-agency channels
such as Police to Police or Prosecutor to Prosecutor.
The mutual understanding between equivalent offices could be built by signing an MoU.
To strengthen its duties and function in law enforcement and the judiciary, the AGO of
Indonesia has signed MoUs with several prosecution offices abroad, such as: the AGC of
Malaysia, the AGO of Thailand, the AGC of Singapore, the SPP of Russia, the DoJ of theUnited States of America, the AGD of Australia, the SPP of Korea, Hong Kong and the
SPP of People’s Republic of China. In addition to mutual understanding that has been built
through MoUs, the assignment of a representative of the AGO at the Embassy of the- 64 -- 66 -

requesting or requested countries also plays a very important role not only for diplomaticchannels but also as a partner in the early discussion of legal matters.
Such informal cooperation has succeeded for years in Indonesia’s experience, partly
because Indonesia still has very few treaties on extradition or MLA with other countries.
Moreover, informal cooperation mechanisms are acceptable in Indonesian courts. One of
the advantages considered in its application is that this method is simpler and faster, andthe most important thing is that this method upholds due process of law.
Informal cooperation mechanisms that apply in Indonesia may include cooperation in
obtaining information, supplementary evidence or in seeking to arrest fugitives for the
purpose of investigation, prosecution or execution of court decisions. This not only applies
for corruption cases but also for other general crimes.
1. Best Practices for Informal Cooperation(a) Non-extradition surrender to serve the Court sentence(i)Corruption case of defendant Adelin Lis
 Hendro Leonardi a.k.a Adelin Lis (AL) was convicted for corruption and illegal
logging in 2018 that caused ±IDR 119.8 billion in state losses. He was sentenced to
10 years’ imprisonment, a fine of IDR 1 billion, to pay restitution in the amount of
IDR 119.8 billion as compensation for state losses, as well as to pay the forest
recovery fund in the amount of US$ 2,938,556.24 (Supreme court decision no. 68
K/PID.SUS/2008, 31 July 2018).
 AL had been a fugitive of the AGO (wanted person for execution) for over 13 years.
He was once apprehended in Beijing in 2006 but managed to escape.
 AL has been subject to an Interpol Red Notice since 2008. In 2009, he was also
confirmed to have stayed in Australia, but the effort to extradite him failed due to acommunication issue. In May 2018, he was caught red handed using a false ID as
his passport by the ICA of Singapore. The Singapore court fined him for SGD
14,000 (9 June 2021) and decided to deport him to Indonesia. Unable to proceedwith the surrender using the extradition platform, since the extradition treaty
between Indonesia and Singapore has not yet been ratified by the Indonesian
government, AL was surrendered through the repatriation process. The AGO via
legal attaché (of the AGO) and the immigration attaché at the Indonesian Embassyin Singapore coordinated with the ICA. AL was surrendered on 19 June 2021 to theIndonesian government and sent to jail to serve his sentence. He has paid the IDR
1 billion fine and is now in the process of paying restitution to the State.
This is an example of a multi-agency collaboration: the AGO, the immigration authority
of Indonesia and Singapore, and the involvement of diplomatic channels in the avenue ofthe cooperation to combat corruption(ii)

Corruption Case – embezzlement: defendant Samadikun Hartono Samadikun was found guilty of having embezzled Rp 2.5 trillion ($190 million) inbailout money received by the now-defunct Bank Modern from the notorious Bank

- 65 -- 67 -

Indonesia Liquidity Assistance (BLBI) fund during the Asian financial crisis of
1998.
 In 2003, the Central Jakarta District Court sentenced Samadikun to five years inprison, an IDR 20 million fine and IDR 169 billion as restitution for state losses.
On appeal, the Supreme Court sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment and thesame amount of fines.
 He had been a fugitive for over 13 years until he was located by the StateIntelligence Agency in Shanghai in 2016. Soon afterwards, Samadikun was
detained by the immigration authority of China for a month. He had five passports
with different identities and had also been hiding in Gambia and Dominica.
 Upon arriving in Indonesia, Samadikun was directly transferred to the Attorney
General's Office, before serving his sentence in Salemba Prison. The Central
Jakarta District Attorney has also restored all the state’s finances by depositing IDR
81 billion, IDR 1 billion and IDR87 billion (total IDR 169 Bi) as restitution fromthe convict Samadikun Hartono. The money was derived from the sale ofSamadikun’s assets.
This is an example of multi-agency and cross-border cooperation between theintelligence agency, immigration authority and the Attorney General’s Office.
(iii)

Joko Sugiarto Tjandra The National Police brought Djoko Soegiarto Tjandra (JST), a fugitive and graft
convict who had been on the run for 11 years, back to Indonesia after arresting him
in Malaysia. Djoko was first arrested in September 1999 for his involvement in thehigh-profile Bank Bali corruption case.
 He was acquitted by the South Jakarta District Court in 2000. After the AGO fileda request for review, the Supreme Court sentenced Djoko to two years of
imprisonment in 2009 and ordered him to pay IDR 546 billion (US$54 million) in
restitution. However, Djoko fled to Papua New Guinea a day before the court rulingand had remained at large ever since. Djoko recently made headlines as he managed
to return to the country undetected and request a case review of his conviction with
the South Jakarta District Court in early June.
 JST had been the AGO fugitive for over 11 years. He was finally located, when hereportedly filed his plea after obtaining a new electronic ID card and passport, in
addition to having his Interpol red notice status lifted. The court, however, dropped
his case review plea after JST, who was reported to be residing in Malaysia, failed
to show up for the hearing four times. JST’s legal team said that the fugitive was
not able to attend trial due to his poor health.
 His return process is another example of non-formal cooperation. Though Indonesia
and Malaysia have signed an extradition treaty, JST was surrendered on 30 July
2020 using the police-to-police network. JST surrendered to serve his prison
sentence in the Bank Bali case of 1999 (Supreme Court verdict 2009), and yet also

- 66 -- 68 -

to be prosecuted for bribing officials to overturn his “red notice” status. The High
Court sentenced him for 3.5 years due to his appeal on the latter case.
This is another good example of agency-to-agency cooperation. The history of this casealso provides an example of how important officials’ integrity factors into maintaining
cross-border cooperation as a tool.
(iv)

Non-MLA mechanism for obtaining victims’ statement for court trial:
Umar Patek
Umar Patek was among those who built the bombs used in the church bombing in 2000
and the Bali bombings 2002. Patek was arrested in Abbottabad, Pakistan, just a few weeks
before US special forces killed Osama Bin Laden. In order to build a strong case withvictims’ testimony not only from those local people, yet also from foreign victims who
were paralyzed after the catastrophe, the prosecutors of the Task Force at the AGO
managed to cooperate with the Special Detachment 88 of the INP, the AFP and the US FBI
to bring four victims from Australia and the USA. They came voluntarily to strengthen theprosecution. Thus, there were no formal enquiries submitted, but the witness summons wassent via the FBI.
This is an example of transnational agency-to-agency cooperation, i.e. the AGO of
Indonesia, the Australian Federal Police, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation and theIndonesian National Police.
III. CONCLUSION
Any mechanism of cooperation chosen that requires significant law enforcement
activity, particularly in combating corruption, must avoid any delay of justice. Therefore,making the right decision at the very beginning by communicating to the right partner(which, in our opinion, is the law enforcement counterpart, through agency-to-agency
cooperation) will save time. This will remain a challenge.
To conclude, in Indonesia’s experience, effective cross-border cooperation needs: 1)strong commitment, professionalism and integrity of the officials involved; 2)
understanding of the legal system and how each authority of the requested country
functions; 3) consideration of which mechanism should be employed, considering theamount of time that may be required to fulfil the request and the admissibility in court ofany information received.

- 67 -- 69 -