• Established in December 2003

• Independent from the Executive, Legislative, Judiciary and any other powers

• Responsible to the Public

• Financially, KPK is audited by the Indonesian Supreme Audit Board

• Lead by 5 commissioners

Law Number 30 year 2002 Article 44:

“Preliminary evidence is considered to positively

identify a corrupt act if at least two material evidence has been

discovered, including but not limited to information

or data that is uttered, sent, accepted, or kept

electronically optically, or normally

*Investigator authority based on Indonesian Law on Criminal Procedure:

*To take the first steps at the place of occurrence

*To order a suspect to stop and examine the suspect’s identification

*To carry out arrest, detention, search and seizure

Search and

seizure

Problems:*Authentication

*Volatility of evidence

*Very easy to be altered

Information Processing and

Analysis and digital forensic

Handling the evidence in the correct maner

Produce digital fingerprint ( i.e MD S HASH )

Support the investigator in analyzing the evidences

(i.e network analysis, extract, and cloning the

data )

We include that digital

fingerprint in our affidavit

when we seize the evidence

This policy is taken to

strengthen the validity of the

evidence. Thus, the

validity of the evidence can be tested by

everyone

*Indonesia is adopting continental law which means that the domination of the judge during the trial is significant. We have experienced challenges when we brought case which have many digital evidences. The judge questioned the validity of the evidences.

*KPK brought expert witness to the court to explain the validity of the evidence and the standard of digital evidence handling.

*To provide the information that we gain from the digital evidence into affidavit.

*Occured in 2004–2007

*Committed by a company namely ALT Co & CEO of State Electricity Company (in Surabaya Branch) namely HS

* Have caused state loss of IDR175.000.674.815 (USD17,500,000)

HS LAMPUNG

In 2003 state electricity company (in Sumatera branch) has contract with ALT Co to establish Customer Management System (CMS)

ALT company

SURABAYA

In the end 2003, HS transferred to the state electricity company

branch surabaya as CEO

CEO

ALT Co which was represented by SAM, GK and FZ, offered HS a proposal to establish CMS in surabaya. They also offered HS benefit sharing from the

project Existing CMS HS agreed the proposal even though he

knew there was existing CMS in SURABAYA

ALT Co and programmer of existing CMS made an agreement that ALT Co will use the existing CMS. The existing CMS also claimed as

a product of ALT company

HS and his staff facillitated ALT Co by making false procurement

Search and Seizure

LAMPUNG(South

Sumatera)

SURABAYA(East Java)

ALT Co

GK

SAMFZ

HS

EXISTING CMS OWNER

*Investigators found that ALT Co. did not make/perform any project/work relating with the CMS Project in Surabaya

* Further investigation found that HS, through his spouse, has been received bribe from ALT Co.

*It is proved that HS has received Rp 1.225.000.000 (USD122.500) from ALT Co. for the project

Evidence (Email):

This proves an intention to give kickback to HS and other officials in the company..

A false procurement bid..

8 years imprisonment and a fine of IDR

6.500.000.000 (USD650,000)

4 years imprisonment and a fine of IDR150.000.000 (USD150,000)

HS

SAM

ALT co

*Changes in technology have brought a lot of challenges

*Traditional vs Modern Investigation Techniques

*How to utilise IT and other means to obtain evidence?

*How to provide such evidence in the court for trial?