Bank BJB Corruption

THE investigation into the alleged corruption in Bank Jawa Barat dan Banten (BJB) should be an opportunity for the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) to slightly improve its reputation. But as the term of office of its leadership nears its end, the KPK has given the impression of playing games over this case.

One indication of this is the conflicting statements from two KPK officials. KPK Director of Investigations Asep Guntur Rahayu said there were already five suspects in relation to the alleged markup of advertising placement funds. But, on another occasion, a KPK spokesperson said the case has yet to proceed to the investigation stage, meaning there were not yet any suspects.

In a substantial sense, the indications of corruption in the Bank BJB case are quite clear. It is believed that promotional and publicity costs were improperly increased so that the difference could be enjoyed by certain individuals, including people within and close to regional government officials. It is estimated that BJB wasted around Rp200 billion from 2021 to 2023.

Furthermore, there are indications of the involvement of the state auditor in this case. An audit by the Supreme Audit Agency only concluded that there was a wastage of state funds. The auditor should have been more specific and stated that there were significant losses to the state in relation to this case.

During the administration of Joko Widodo, especially in his second period, the public has often questioned the integrity of the KPK and other law enforcement bodies, such as the state auditor. After being weakened and made no longer independent, it has been increasingly apparent that the KPK—and other law enforcement bodies—have often been used by the government to protect its allies and to attack its political opponents.

If the KPK has the courage to investigate the BJB case without fear or favor, it is not impossible that many people will be dragged in. Like other corruption cases, the proceeds of corruption are usually not only enjoyed by a small number of ‘players in the field’ but are also passed on to more important people, so they turn a blind eye, or even facilitate the corruption. As well as involving internal BJB officials, this case could also involve advertising agencies, regional officials and even the state auditor.

Nevertheless, the conflicting statements from KPK officials are a strong indication that their internal investigation is not proceeding as it should be. Because the KPK Director of Investigations has said there are five suspects, the commission should reveal their identities and explain the extent of their involvement in the case. The KPK’s lack of transparency will only fuel public suspicions that it has made an about turn because an important individual in the case has moved closer to the center of the government.

With the KPK leadership’s term of office ending in December, they should show their seriousness and responsibility by leaving behind a good legacy. Getting right to the bottom of the BJB case will be an opportunity for the KPK to slightly improve its reputation, which has long been in decline.

Sadly, the public’s hope for the return of an independent and impartial KPK still feels far from reality.