|
The
Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) recently named Prosperous Justice
Party (PKS) chairman Luthfi Hasan Ishaaq a graft suspect, shocking the
entire nation not only because the move against a party chief was
unprecedented but also because of the party’s clean reputation.
Luthfi was
allegedly involved in beef-import bribery where evidence suggests that he
had misused his power as a political party chairman and a House of
Representatives member to give privileges to certain parties for importing
beef by means
of, among other things, recommendation to the agriculture minister.
Now that the
next election is just around the corner, many believe this one incident
will irreparably damage any chance the PKS had of winning.
Essentially,
politicians are supposed to be the “agent” for the “principal” (citizens)
in which the former must act on behalf of the latter.
Regarding this
relationship, many experts believe that corruption occurs when the abuse of
public resources by the “agent” to gain personal benefits takes place.
Criminologist Donald R. Cressey used the term “trust violators” to depict
such agents who misuse their principals’ trust for their own ends.
Luthfi,
according to the KPK deputy chairman Bambang Widjojanto, is accused of
“selling” his power as a party leader to unlawfully influence government
officials in their decisions regarding the distribution of beef-import
quotas.
For this
“service” it is alleged that he was rewarded handsomely by third parties in
the form of bribe money.
In anti-fraud
studies, this is commonly known as a “rent seeking” transaction where
someone with power provides an illegal service and sells his “product” to
third parties for personal or group gains.
The “rent”, or
in many cases, “political rent”, itself is associated with the “net
benefits” the bribers obtain from engaging in an illegal transaction with
corrupt politicians.
In the beef
import case, for example, the alleged bribers were willing to pay a huge
amount of money to the alleged bribees since the latter were presumably
believed by the former to be able to assist them in obtaining financial
benefits from beef importation.
The perceived
“rent” in this case is the difference between the money paid for bribing
and that acquired as a result of the importing activities. To be able to
participate in the “bribery market”, a corrupt politician needs to have the
ability to provide assets — or related benefits (e.g. huge business
revenue) to the potential bribers.
This is where
the “cost-benefit” consideration plays its role. Both bribers and bribees
need to be sure that the costs of engaging in the bribery transaction,
including the risk of being caught, will be outweighed by the benefits of
doing so.
As happened in
previous corruption cases, many were surprised when the KPK named a
seemingly clean high-ranking politician a suspect.
Nevertheless,
anti-fraud studies all around the world have established that unlike other
types of crime, fraud is often perpetrated by apparently “unlikely”
offenders.
Evidence
suggests that major fraud cases around the world have commonly involved
well-mannered and educated men of high social status, some of whom may
appear outwardly religious.
The “why”
element of fraud has long been studied by behaviorists to determine factors
that may cause otherwise honest men to succumb to the temptation of fraud.
The desire for
“living a luxurious life” has been identified by many studies as the most
common reason to commit fraud.
Anti-fraud
experts argue that the issue of corruption often circles around the issue
of assets. Living a luxurious life, for example, also means that one must
be in possession of a large amount of assets.
It is evident
in many corruption cases in Indonesia that the offenders have possessed
assets far beyond that which they could possibly earn from their jobs.
For this
matter, assets are also an important focus in any fraud investigation where
investigators will first identify the suspects’ “income from unknown
sources” using, for example, the “net worth” analysis, and then investigate
their true sources to assess the possibility that some or maybe all of them
are from fraudulent activities.
As part of the
so-called “fraud triangle”, rationalization has been known as one of the
important “why” elements of many fraud cases. Essentially, at least before
getting caught and sent to prison, fraud offenders generally believe that they
are not committing any crime. Even after their arrest, some fraud offenders
still believe that they have been wrongfully charged.
Based on
studies, fraud rationalization often stems from within the offenders’ own
organizations in the form of, for example, organizational culture.
Psychologists
have identified a number of key psychological drivers to fraud among which
is blind obedience to authority, where a person obediently submits to his
superiors, no matter how corrupt they are, above everything else.
In many fraud
cases, such an obedient person may be used as an interlocutor to facilitate
bribery transactions and chances are that they too will likely believe that
what they do is justified.
As evinced by
many corruption cases here, interlocutors often become the first suspects
who then lead investigators to the masterminds.
Finally,
everybody needs to understand that fraud currently is a serious problem in
Indonesia.
For citizens,
with regard to the coming election, they need to be more critical in seeing
the corruption problem and how current and future leaders promise to
address it as part of their campaigns.
Citizens also
need to realize that they too are part of the fight against corruption and
that their support for the authorities will properly address the problem.
Each element of
society has its role to play in creating a hostile environment for
corruption and other fraud in Indonesia so that our future generations will
have a chance to live in a fraud-free nation. ●
|
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar