To prevent this behavior, KKN Law 28/1999 on Clean, Authoritative and Free from Collusion, Corruption and Nepotism (KKN) Administration was stipulated in 1999. The Law regulates that collusion, corruption and nepotism practices are considered criminal acts.
KKN will not flourish if cronyism can be thoroughly eradicated. Cronyism refers to favoritism in appointing friends and associates to positions and facilitating them, particularly in politics, between politicians and supporters.
In a KKN Law, not only corruption but collusion and nepotistic practices are also punishable by law. Collusion is an illicit agreement or cooperation between state administrators and other parties that harms others, society and the state. Meanwhile, nepotism is unlawful conduct by state administrators that benefits their families and cronies above the interests of the people, nation and the state.
The minimum punishment for collusion is two-year imprisonment and an IDR 200 million fine; the maximum is 12 years of imprisonment and a fine of IDR 1 billion. Punishment for nepotism is the same as those for collusion crimes. However, in practice, law enforcement, including the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), has never implemented the provisions on collusion and nepotism. The reason why the provisions in the KKN Law are not used remains a mystery until now.
It seems plausible that if the KKN Law is applied to every corruption and bribery case, the deterrent effect will increase, compared to if the penalty is applied only for corruption crimes. This would be more accurate if the Asset Forfeiture Law had been enacted, requiring cooperation between law enforcement, supported by the Financial Transaction Report and Analysis Center (PPATK).
While asset forfeiture holds a legal power, it is also vulnerable to abuse of power by law enforcement officers. First, there are two models of procedural law for asset forfeiture: civil-based forfeiture and criminal– based forfeiture.
The two models may provide opportunities for negotiations between law enforcement and potential asset forfeiture suspects or defendants, because the Asset Forfeiture Bill does not specify legal procedures. The second vulnerability is related to the types of assets or objects that can be confiscated in asset forfeiture.