Dating way back to the colonial era, bribery has alas become an entrenched part of Indonesian culture which seems to afflict all aspects of “business”, especially those which involve public officials. One of the most common examples of this culture can be seen in the fact that most applications submitted by businesses to Indonesian government institutions will only become a pile of dusty paperwork until a certain “stimulus” is provided to the officials concerned.
 
This entrenched culture of bribery has led to Indonesia’s anti-corruption regime becoming primarily focused upon repressive measures which are aimed at public officials, as opposed to the promotion of legal frameworks which offer more comprehensive and preventative approaches to the stubborn problem of the private parties who commit acts of bribery. Indeed, public-official centered frameworks have often left private parties clueless in terms of what anti-bribery guidelines they should be implementing.
 
In general, multinational corporations operating within Indonesia have often preferred to substitute Indonesia’s legal framework with either one of two well-known legal instruments: (1) The United States of America’s (“USA”) Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”); and (2) The United Kingdom’s (“UK”) Bribery Act of 2010 (“UKBA”). In spite of the fact that these two legal frameworks were originally enacted as domestic laws in their respective countries of origin, both the FCPA and the UKBA are still applicable, since these frameworks regulate anti-bribery provisions for foreign public officials and may be implemented by any American and British companies which are operating internationally within other countries.
 
In a bid to encourage a more effective enforcement of anti-bribery measures within Indonesia, this edition of Indonesian Law Digest (ILD) will dissect both the domestic and international legal frameworks which address the issue of bribery. Our discussions will address the following areas: