Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear Hendi Yogi Prabowo  ;   The director of the Center for Forensic Accounting Studies and the Center for Accounting Development at the Islamic University of Indonesia, Yogyakarta; He obtained his Masters and PhD in forensic accounting from the University of Wollongong, Australia

JAKARTA POST, 20 Januari 2015

                                                                                                                       

The year 2015 has just started. And yet, when it comes to corruption eradication, there seems to be no shortage of surprises. Earlier this month, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) made a bold move by naming President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s sole candidate for the chief of the National Police, Comr. Gen. Budi Gunawan, a corruption suspect. This decision was made just one day before his scheduled confirmation hearing by the House of Representatives. Many politicians argued that the decision was a politically motivated one. The politicians also argued that the KPK decision was a direct insult to the President. However, as seen from media coverage and the public perception, people often have misconceptions about the true nature of fraud and corruption. First of all, when it comes to fraud investigation, the only certain thing is the uncertainty itself. That is to say that it is generally difficult for fraud investigators to accurately set the time frame of their investigations in advance. Many things could happen during the course of an investigation including the discovery of new evidence and the identification of new suspects. Many experts and observers commented in the media that the KPK could have picked a better time to name the chief-of-police candidate a corruption suspect. In a fraud investigation, due to its adversarial environment (where many people want to stop you from doing what you do), naming someone a suspect as soon as sufficient evidence is gathered is often a necessary means to ensure the effectiveness of the entire process. However, due to the uncertainty of the adversarial environment where the investigation is conducted, it will often be difficult, if not impossible, to accurately determine in advance the completion time of the evidence-gathering process. This also means that at the beginning of an investigation, given the available potential suspects, investigators generally cannot be sure when they can officially declare who the suspects are. Being accused of making a politically motivated decision is simply part of the occupational hazards of fraud investigators. The KPK deciding not to name a person a suspect even though the evidence against him or her is sufficient just because he or she is about to be appointed to a high position in the government would also be considered as making a politically motivated decision (i.e. to support a person’s rise to power). When the KPK named Budi a corruption suspect, many believed that the commission got the wrong guy mainly because there have never been any prior (visible) indications that he was involved in corrupt acts. Many have challenged the KPK to reveal the evidence based on which its accusation was made. As stated in the media, the KPK argued that the preliminary assessment of Budi’s suspicious transactions was started in 2010 after receiving reports from the public before launching a full scale investigation in mid-2014. The fact that such an investigation has never gained extensive media coverage suggests that the commission may have kept the investigation under wraps presumably to minimize resistance and disruption. In the risky and uncertain world of fraud investigation, secrecy is the key to a successful investigation. This generally becomes more challenging when the investigation is conducted within public institutions, as many parties (especially those affiliated with the investigated persons) will demand the process be fully transparent. When responding to this demand, an anti-corruption agency such as the KPK should find the right balance between secrecy and transparency. The commission needs to be cautious when making public statements about the progress of an investigation as the investigated parties will be eager to know how much the commission knows about their misconduct to devise counter-measures to hinder the investigation. The public needs to see and respond to the recent events related to the naming of the chief-of-police candidate as a corruption suspect wisely. While still honoring the principle of presumption of innocence, the public needs to trust the KPK to carry on its investigation without prejudice. We also hope that the government will provide its full support to the commission to carry out its duty as, based on worldwide experience, an anti-corruption agency is only as good as the government wants it to be. ●