HANDLING MULTIJURISDICTIONAL CORRUPTION: A CASESTUDY ON BRIBERY IN PT. GARUDA INDONESIA (PERSERO),TBK.
Fiki N. Ardiansyah *I. BACKGROUND
Today, acts of corruption are becoming increasingly massive, occurring in almost all
sectors and levels of government. In order to combat this matter, our country has issued
statutory provisions to support the acceleration of corruption eradication, namely throughLaw Number 31 of 1999 about Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption as amended by
Law Number 20 of 2001 about Amendments to Law Number 31 1999 about the Eradicationof Corruption Crimes. However, there are still many perpetrators of corruption crimes who
successfully escape and were not detected by law enforcement officers. The perpetrators ofcorruption are increasingly adept at utilizing various sophisticated equipment and using all
available resources. Corruption is becoming increasingly complex by utilizing the crossjurisdictional-banking and financial system so that it does not recognize national borders
anymore. In addition, the corruptors also try to hide the results of their corruption abroad,
carry out bribery transactions abroad, involve foreign people or organizations, and use shellcompanies overseas.
On the other hand, law enforcement officers who have the authority to handle
corruption cases have limitations because they do not have authority in other countries.
Moreover, the knowledge, skills, abilities and experience of law enforcement officers who
handle cross-jurisdictional corruption cases cannot be said to be qualified. There are many
challenges and obstacles to dealing with this. Law enforcement officers need to synergize
with each other to be able to uncover and ensnare perpetrators of transnational corruption.
Exchange of information, intense communication and good cooperation between law
enforcement agencies is absolutely necessary here.
The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) is a new institution formed during thereform era with the aim to accelerate the eradication of corruption in Indonesia. KPK wasestablished on 29 December 2003. Until now (as of 31 March 2021), KPK has handled
1,145 cases. Not all corruption cases in Indonesia can be handled by KPK. Only cases withcertain specifications can be handled, namely: those causing State financial losses of atleast IDR 1 billion, those involving law enforcement officers or public officials, or those
disturbing the public. Beyond that, the case must be handled by the police or prosecutors.
Based on Law Number 30/2002 about the Corruption Eradication Commission, as amended
by Law Number 19/2019 about the Second Amendment to Law Number 30/2002 about the
Corruption Eradication Commission, it is stated that KPK has the following duties:
coordination with institutions authorized to eradicate corruption; supervision of institutions
authorized to eradicate corruption; conducting pre-investigations, investigations andprosecutions of corruption crime; taking measures to prevent corruption; and monitoring
the practices of government.
*

Investigator, Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), Indonesia.

- 69 -- 71 -

In almost all corruption cases involving a large flow of money handled by KPK, it was
found that the funds flowed and were hidden in a foreign country. Even in some cases, thebribe money has even flowed from the accounts of foreign companies abroad to theaccounts of Indonesian officials abroad. This fact shows that law enforcement officers ineradicating corruption (especially KPK) cannot work alone and only rely on domesticcooperation. International cooperation in efforts to eradicate corruption is one of the main
keys to the success of eradicating corruption.
One of the international collaborations that has been carried out by KPK was whenhandling corruption cases at PT. Garuda Indonesia (Persero), Tbk. This corruption case has
been handled by KPK since 2015, and the perpetrators were only sentenced by the judge in2020. The length of handling this case is more or less influenced by the length of theinternational cooperation process because it involves many jurisdictions.
II. MAIN TOPIC
A. Case Background
The Garuda case is a corruption case followed by a money-laundering case carried out
by the board of directors, namely the President Director / CEO Mr. Emirsyah Satar (Mr.
ES), Director of Engineering Mr. Hadinoto Soedigno (Mr. HS) and EPM (Executive ProjectManager) Aircraft Delivery Mr. Agus Wahjudo (Mr. AW). In addition, there was a private
party who was also involved, namely Mr. Soetikno Soedarjo (Mr. SS). Briefly, the casemodel is in the form of procurement and purchase of aircraft, aircraft engines and aircraft
engine maintenance at PT. Garuda Indonesia. When PT. Garuda Indonesia signed a contract
with a manufacturer of aircraft or aircraft engines, then the manufacturer gave acommission to Mr. SS for successfully securing the contract. A portion of the commission
was then given to the directors. PT. Garuda Indonesia is a State Owned Enterprise so its
directors are public officials.
The story begins in 1989 when PT. Garuda Indonesia purchased nine units of A330300 aircraft from Airbus S.A.S with Rolls-Royce Trent 700 engines. The success of thissale is due to the contribution of Mr. SS as commercial adviser for Rolls-Royce in Indonesia.
Using the company's account, namely PT. Mahasara Buana and PT. Mugi Rekso Abadi,
Mr. SS received a commission from Rolls-Royce for this success.
In 2005, Mr. ES began serving as President Director of PT. Garuda Indonesia. Whenhe was appointed to be a CEO, he carried out a programme named Quantum Leap to reformthe company. The goals were to revitalize aircraft and improve the quality of engine
maintenance. This opportunity was understood by aircraft and aircraft engine
manufacturers to offer their products to PT. Garuda Indonesia. Mr. SS saw the opportunity
and asked Rolls-Royce for permission to become a commercial adviser of Airbus and ATR.
Subsequently in 2008, Mr. SS founded Connaught International Pte. Ltd. in Singapore andappointed Ms. CTLM as its President Director. Mr. SS then opened a company account at
UBS Bank to receive the next commission from Rolls-Royce. Apart from Connaught, Mr.
SS also owned several companies whose accounts were used to receive commissions andprovide bribes to Indonesian officials. These companies are Summerville Pacific Inc.,
Upstars Ltd., Vintone Business Inc., Innospace Investment Holding Ltd., PT.
Ardyaparamita Ayuprakasa and PT. Mugi Rekso Abadi. Most of these companies are
domiciled in Singapore and have no business activities (shell companies).
- 70 -- 72 -

Rolls-Royce, through Mr. SS, began to aggressively approach Mr. ES to take a Total
Care Program (TCP) contract for maintaining Rolls-Royce aircraft engines equipped on
A330 aircraft. TCP is a method of maintaining aircraft engines on a regular basis regardlessof whether the engine is in good or bad condition. This is different from the engine
maintenance method that has been used by PT. Garuda Indonesia, namely Time andMaterial Base (TMB). This treatment method is only carried out when the aircraft engine
is damaged. Mr. SS also approached Mr. ES to buy another A330 aircraft from Airbus. In
the end, PT. Garuda Indonesia signed an engine maintenance contract using the TCP
method with Rolls-Royce and signed a purchase contract for 21 units of A330 aircraft with
Airbus. For this success, Mr. SS received commissions from Rolls-Royce and Airbus wherepart of the commission was then given to Mr. ES, Mr. HS and Mr. AW. Mr. SS also
managed to secure a purchase contract for 50 units of A320 aircraft from Airbus to PT.
Garuda Indonesia where these aircraft would be used for Citilink. Citilink is a subsidiaryof PT. Garuda Indonesia, which focuses on serving economy class flights. For the ATR
company, Mr. SS managed to secure a purchase contract for 15 units of ATR 72-600
aircraft by PT. Garuda Indonesia. The pattern of bribes is also the same way, which wasgiven to Garuda officials after Mr. SS received commission from ATR.
Mr. SS’s business then developed after he was trusted to be a commercial adviser for
Bombardier. In contrast to the previous business pattern, the contract with Bombardier was
carried out through the company named Hollingsworth Management International (a Hong
Kong company) owned by his colleague, Mr. BD (French citizen). Using the company, Mr.
SS and Mr. BD shared the task of marketing Bombardier in Indonesia. After Mr. SS
approached Mr. ES, Mr. HS and Mr. AW, in 2012 PT. Garuda Indonesia signed a contract
to purchase six units of CRJ1000 aircraft from Bombardier. PT. Garuda Indonesia also
signed a lease contract for 12 units of CRJ1000 aircraft with Bombardier. At the same time,
Hollingsworth began receiving sales commissions from Bombardier which were thenpartially passed to Mr. ES, Mr. HS and Mr. AW.
How did Mr. ES take bribes from Mr. SS? In 2009, Mr. ES founded a company named
Woodlake International Ltd. in Singapore and opened a corporate account at UBS
Singapore. Through this account, Mr. ES several times received transfers from Mr. SS witha total of USD 680,000 and EUR 1,020,975. A small part of the money was then sent to an
account in Indonesia owned by his family or withdrawn in cash by Mr. ES. Meanwhile,
USD 1,458,364 was deposited with Mr. SS by sending it back to Mr. SS's account at
Standard Chartered Bank, Singapore. They agreed to make an underlying transaction sothat the money could be returned to Mr. ES in a way as if Mr. SS bought Silversea apartment
owned by Mr. ES. In the end, the money was sent back to Mr. ES and the Silversea
apartment remained the property of Mr. ES because the buying and selling process was not
valid as it was not reported to the Singaporean authorities.
Apart from the transactions through Woodlake, Mr. ES also received bribes from Mr.
SS when buying a house in Pondok Indah, Jakarta. Mr. ES bought a house in Pondok Indahfrom Ms. IIS to give to his mother-in-law. Payments for the house were made several times,
and Mr. SS also paid by giving a number of checks to Ms. IIS with a total amount of IDR
5.79 billion. The process of disguising the origin of the bribe money from Mr. SS to Mr.
ES was then processed as a money-laundering crime and submitted to a trial at the sametime as the corruption case.

- 71 -- 73 -

The pattern of receiving bribes from Mr. SS to Mr. HS and Mr. AW was the same as
when Mr. SS received commissions from the manufacturer; then, some amounts would besent to Mr. HS and Mr. AW through their account in Singapore. The difference between
the two is in the amount of money received. Mr. HS always received about two times themoney from Mr. AW at the same time. The total amount of money received by Mr. HS
from Mr. SS through his SCB Singapore account was USD 2,302,974 and EUR 477,540,
while Mr. AW through his HSBC Singapore account received bribes from Mr. SS with a
total of USD 1,049,125 and EUR 135,305.
In addition to accepting bribes, the officials of PT. Garuda Indonesia also received
gratification from Mr. SS including: lunch, dinner and lodging at the Four Season Hotel,
Bali; lunch, dinner and lodging at the Bulgary Hotel, Bali. They also received gratificationin the form of a private plane rental payment for flights from Bali to Jakarta.
B. International Cooperation
As described above, this case involves many jurisdictions, such as Indonesia, Singapore,
the UK, Hong Kong, Canada and France. Each of these countries has a different legal
system and challenges in building a cooperative relationship with KPK. To trace and provethe corruption scheme, KPK conducted a parallel investigation with the UK's Serious Fraud
Office (SFO) and Singapore's Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB).
The beginning of the cooperation began when SFO investigated a bribery case by a
British company, Rolls-Royce, that made payments to several foreign public officials,
including in Indonesia, namely the directors of PT. Garuda Indonesia. At that time, KPKteam consisting of investigators, prosecutors and cooperation specialists left for England to
examine a witness in another case facilitated by SFO. On that occasion, SFO informed KPK
that SFO was investigating Rolls-Royce for giving bribes to foreign officials to smooth out
its business. One of these officials was a director of Garuda Indonesia. SFO also provided
intelligence information for KPK to investigate because they believed that KPK would takethis case seriously as proved by their handling of the previous case.
After the meeting, KPK and SFO began communicating with Singapore’s CPIB. Withvarious considerations, it was agreed that a trilateral meeting would be held between SFOKPK-CPIB to discuss the case in more detail. The casework meeting was finally held in
Singapore. The KPK team that attended the meeting consisted of a preliminary investigator,
investigator, prosecutor and cooperation specialist. The purpose was to show outsiders that
KPK was taking this case seriously.
During the meeting, it was agreed that a joint investigation would be carried out tohandle this case together. SFO would handle Rolls-Royce and Airbus, KPK would handle
Garuda officials and other Indonesian citizens involved, and CPIB would handle
corporations based in Singapore such as Connaught (owned by Mr. SS) and Woodlake(owned by Mr. ES). Another point of agreement was that the defendants would not becharged with the death penalty. During the meeting, KPK obtained evidence on an
intelligence basis, such as evidence of communication between the aircraft manufacturer
and Indonesian citizens from SFO. KPK also received information on several streams ofmoney which included a commission from the manufacturer to Mr. SS and also bribes to
Garuda officials. The documents were obtained from CPIB.

- 72 -- 74 -

By the data and information given, KPK began to open an investigation into this case.
As in general investigations in other cases, KPK began to collect supporting evidence
through searches, seizures and examination of witnesses. KPK also started to list therequired documents located in other countries. The required documents would later berequested from the requested country through the MLA mechanism. Most of these
documents were obtained by KPK during the trilateral meeting. The MLA process was only
to obtain these documents formally so that they could be used in court. The formal
mechanism for requesting MLA from Indonesia to other countries is: KPK  Central
Authority (Ministry of Law and Human Rights)  Central Authority of the requested
country  institution that has the documents. Before the list of documents is sent to theCentral Authority, KPK sends the list of documents to the SFO or CPIB via email for theverification process. Verification carried out by the destination country includes thesuitability of the requested document, the accuracy of its legal basis and whether thedestination country has the requested document and is willing to provide it to KPK. If
something was not right, SFO or CPIB had agreed to inform KPK.
After the list of documents was deemed appropriate, KPK coordinated with the Central
Authority of Indonesia to prepare the MLA request. Usually, the initial draft of the MLA
request, which is generally prepared by the Corruption Eradication Commission, is thenreviewed by the Central Authority of Indonesia. Thus, the Central Authority of Indonesia
does not have to bother to prepare an MLA draft which is not necessarily in accordancewith the wishes of KPK. The Central Authority of Indonesia then sends the MLA request
to the UK’s Central Authority and Singapore’s Central Authority.
1. Cooperation with the UK
In the middle of 2017, KPK sent its MLA request to the UK to obtain documents held
by SFO. Some of these documents had already been given to KPK by SFO as intelligence.
These documents included: email communications between Rolls-Royce officials and PT.
Garuda Indonesia or Mr. SS; Commercial Adviser Agreements between Rolls-Royce and
Mr. SS. In order for the request to be fulfilled immediately, KPK informed SFO thatIndonesia had sent the MLA request to the UK. SFO personnel provided updates on the
MLA process in the UK to KPK directly via email or telephone.
When communicating with SFO personnel, sometimes SFO asked for an explanationof the facts of the case or an update on the handling of the case. KPK often informed SFO
that KPK had obtained important documents as a result of search and seizure operations.
In such circumstances, SFO usually asked KPK to send the documents to SFO. In addition,
SFO also asked for statements from several witnesses who had been examined by KPK.
Data/information from KPK to SFO was always sent as intelligence. In this case, SFO neverrequested data/information from KPK/Indonesia through the MLA mechanism.
In the middle of 2018, KPK received documents from SFO through the MLA
mechanism in two stages. Thus, this MLA process took about 1 year. This was a short timeto process an MLA request so that it can be said to have been successful. The speed of the
MLA process was influenced by the details of the requested documents and the speed of
response in both technical and non-technical terms. In addition, the trust between SFO andKPK was also influential because SFO saw that KPK was serious about handling this case.

- 73 -- 75 -

2. Cooperation with Singapore
The process of requesting data/information from Singapore through the MLA
mechanism was also carried out simultaneously with the MLA request sent to the UK,
which took place in the middle of 2017. The documents requested from Singapore included:
Commercial Adviser Agreements between the manufacturer and Mr. SS throughConnaught, banking documents belonging to Mr. SS, Mr. ES, Mr. HS and Mr. AW which
includes account opening, Beneficial Owner declaration, Account Statement and specifictransfer documents, as well as an affidavit of Ms. CTLM. Communication was also carriedout with CPIB personnel to speed up the delivery of the MLA request where the process isalmost the same as the communication process with SFO. The difference is that Singapore
needs to hold a trial first to execute the MLA request. At trial, related parties can fileobjections, and this causes the process to take longer.
KPK only started receiving the requested data/information from Singapore in early2019. The documents were sent in four stages. Even though it took longer than the MLA
request to the UK, the MLA process in Singapore was quite fast overall. This is because
Singapore needed to be careful with these documents as it involved bank secrets which can
only be released with the consent of the Singapore Government.
Meanwhile, CPIB also asked KPK for assistance in facilitating the interview of Mr.
AW. Previously, KPK informed CPIB that Mr. AW was a cooperating witness. He
confessed his actions and was willing to return all the bribes he received. Therefore, CPIB
was interested in taking his statement. After Mr. AW was willing to be interviewed, CPIB
came to Jakarta and conducted an examination of Mr. AW accompanied by a KPK
investigator. Furthermore, CPIB also facilitated the return of bribes held in Mr. AW's
account in Singapore which amounted to USD 1,402,125. The money was then sent to
KPK’s holding account for seizure.
Based on the international cooperation between KPK-SFO-CPIB, KPK was able toobtain important data and information needed to unravel this case. This can generally beseen from the illustration below:

Picture 1. Funds Flow
- 74 -- 76 -

C. Challenges and Obstacles
As mentioned before, there are other jurisdictions in this case: Hong Kong, Canada andFrance. At the time of the initial handling of this case, KPK-SFO-CPIB had not contacted
the relevant agency in those countries. KPK only tried to contact the agency in Hong Kongafter KPK obtained sufficient evidence regarding the involvement of an entity in Hong
Kong, namely Hollingsworth Management International, Ltd. (HMI). The agency that was
asked for help in this matter was the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC)
Hong Kong. After several communications via email asking for ICAC's assistance, it was
finally agreed to meet at ICAC’s office. During the meeting, KPK tried to convince ICAC
that KPK was serious in handling this case. KPK wanted to ask Hong Kong's ICAC to help
obtain documents related to HMI including its banking transactions. However, KPK did
not succeed in persuading Hong Kong's ICAC to cooperate. Hong Kong's ICAC found it
difficult to share documents with KPK due to different legal aspects. In communication
with SFO, they also informed KPK that their MLA request to Hong Kong had failed.
KPK was also trying to communicate with Canadian authorities regarding Bombardier's
involvement. This communication was opened by SFO because they needed the assistanceof Canadian authorities to carry out a search. The agency contacted by SFO was the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). SFO also asked for KPK's permission because the basis
for their request for RCMP’s assistance was a document that came from KPK. Initially,
SFO promised that KPK would get the documents obtained from Canada. However,Canada did not give permission for SFO to share the documents with KPK. In this case,
KPK did not communicate directly with Canada, which might have led to a lack of trust
between each party.
Besides that, KPK, facilitated by SFO, was also trying to establish communication withFrance. The process was almost the same as in Canada where SFO first opened a line witha French agency, namely Parquet National Financier (PNF). After that, KPK managed toestablish direct communication with PNF. At the end of 2019, KPK also sent an MLA
request to France to obtain data/information regarding entities there such as Airbus, ATR
and Mr. BD. To accelerate the MLA request, KPK also met directly with PNF’s official inFrance and explored the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding for cooperation
between agencies. However, the results of the MLA request still have not been sent toIndonesia due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
III. CONCLUSION
Through this international cooperation, each country has succeeded in punishing theperpetrators it prosecuted. In Indonesia, Mr. ES has been sentenced by the court to prisonfor 8 years and a fine of IDR 1 billion plus an obligation to pay compensation of SGD
2,117,315 for accepting bribes and money-laundering. The Pondok Indah house has also
been confiscated for asset recovery. The Director of Engineering, Mr. HS, was sentenced
to 8 years in prison and a fine of IDR 1 billion plus the obligation to pay compensation of
USD 2,302,974 and EUR 477,540, while Mr. SS was sentenced to 6 years in prison and afine of IDR 1 billion plus the obligation to pay compensation of USD 14,619,937 and EUR
11,553,190. The UK’s SFO through the DPA mechanism has succeeded in obtaining a finepayment from Rolls-Royce of GBP 497,252,645. SFO also succeeded in collecting a finefrom Airbus of EUR 991 million as part of a EUR 3,592,766,766 global resolution.

- 75 -- 77 -

According to SFO, the imposition of this fine through the DPA is the third time since the
DPA regulation came into effect. This DPA is also the largest in terms of value.
The keys to the success of international cooperation carried out by KPK arecommitment, speed of coordination and accuracy in developing communication strategies
with foreign institutions. In order for the request for assistance to run smoothly, it is also
necessary to build trust and adjust the cooperation mechanism according to the standardsof each country. The important thing that needs to be done to strengthen international
cooperation is appreciation for countries/agencies that provide assistance. KPK through its
website and email has expressed its gratitude to SFO UK and CPIB Singapore for theassistance they have provided. On the other hand, SFO and CPIB have also expressed their
gratitude to KPK for the successful cooperation carried out in the form of this joint
investigation.

- 76 -- 78 -

REFERENCES
Kahfi, Kharishar. (2020). Former Garuda boss sentenced to eight years for bribery, money
laundering. Accessed on October 21, 2021 at 12.50 from the page:https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/05/09/former-garuda-boss-sentencedto-eight-years-for-bribery-money-laundering.html
Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi. (2020). International Cooperation in the Investigation of
Garuda Case. Accessed on October 21, 2021 at 13.30 from the page:https://www.kpk.go.id/en/news/press-releases/1687-international-cooperation-inthe-investigation-of-garuda-case
Serious Fraud Office. (2017). SFO completes £497.25m Deferred Prosecution Agreementwith Rolls-Royce PLC. Accessed on October 21, 2021 at 13.00 from the page:https://www.sfo.gov.uk/2017/01/17/sfo-completes-497-25m-deferred-prosecutionagreement-rolls-royce-plc/
Serious Fraud Office. (2020). SFO enters into €991m Deferred Prosecution Agreementwith Airbus as part of a €3.6bn global resolution. Accessed on October 21, 2021 at
13.10 from the page: https://www.sfo.gov.uk/2020/01/31/sfo-enters-into-e991mdeferred-prosecution-agreement-with-airbus-as-part-of-a-e3-6bn-global-resolution/- 77 -- 79 -