JURIDIC REVIEW Proof Of The Cartel Agreement For The Food Industrial Salt Trade Trade Cartel In Indonesia According To Business Competition Law (Study Of KPPU Decision No.09/KPPU-I/2018)

by ADMIN 187 views

JURIDIC REVIEW Proof of the Cartel Agreement for the Food Industrial Salt Trade Trade Cartel in Indonesia according to Business Competition Law (Study of KPPU Decision No.09/KPPU-I/2018)

Understanding the Challenges of Proving Cartel Agreements in Indonesia

Business competition law in Indonesia is faced with significant challenges in proving cases of violations, particularly in the case of the cartel of the various food industry salt trade that involves seven reported parties. The Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) applies two methods of proof: direct evidence and indirect evidence. However, the proof of this cartel violation is complicated, given the various factors that influence each other. Cartel agreements are often difficult to prove because their violations tend to be hidden and carried out in a very careful way.

The Complexity of Proving Cartel Agreements

In the context of this case, although there are indications through a meeting held and the issuance of Aipgi's letter which shows that there is an agreement between the reported party to raise prices simultaneously, the KPPU finally decided that there was not enough evidence to prove the existence of a cartel agreement. This decision highlights the complexity of proving cartel agreements, where indirect evidence such as market behavior patterns and correspondence between business actors must be carefully evaluated.

Research Methodology

In writing this thesis, researchers use the normative juridical method with the perspective approach. The data collected includes primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials. The data collection techniques used are literature studies and qualitative data analysis. This approach aims to provide a deep understanding related to the legal mechanisms that apply in the proof of cartel cases in Indonesia.

Data Collection and Analysis

The data collection process involved a thorough review of relevant legal materials, including primary, secondary and tertiary sources. The researchers also conducted literature studies and qualitative data analysis to identify the key factors that influence the proof of cartel agreements in Indonesia. The data analysis revealed that the KPPU decision was based on a careful evaluation of the evidence presented, including indirect evidence such as market behavior patterns and correspondence between business actors.

KPPU Decision Analysis

The KPPU decision stating that the seven reported parties were not proven to have made a cartel agreement that was interesting to be analyzed. Although there is indirect evidence in the form of economic facts that show a joint price increase, KPPU considers that the evidence is not strong enough to justify cartel actions. This shows how complex proof in cases involving cartels, where indirect evidence such as market behavior patterns and correspondence between business actors must be carefully evaluated.

The Need for More Effective Evidence

This decision also reflects the need to develop more effective and systematic evidence in overcoming cartel practices. If the authorities are not successful in proving an anti-study agreement, it will be difficult to uphold the law of business competition. This can create uncertainty in the market and hamper healthy competition, which in turn will harm consumers.

Conclusion

The case of the various food industry salt trading cartels in Indonesia shows the challenges faced by legal authorities in proving violations of business competition. Although there are a number of strong indications about the collusion among the reported parties, the KPPU decision underlined that the existing evidence did not meet the necessary proof standards. Therefore, it is important for policy makers and law enforcers to consider more innovative steps in proving and preventing cartel practices, so that business competition can run fairly and beneficial to the community.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are made:

  • Develop more effective evidence: The authorities should develop more effective and systematic evidence in overcoming cartel practices.
  • Improve data collection and analysis: The data collection and analysis process should be improved to ensure that the evidence presented is strong enough to justify cartel actions.
  • Increase transparency and accountability: The authorities should increase transparency and accountability in their decision-making process to ensure that the law of business competition is upheld.
  • Provide training and capacity building: The authorities should provide training and capacity building to ensure that law enforcers have the necessary skills and knowledge to prove cartel agreements.

Limitations of the Study

This study has several limitations, including:

  • Limited scope: The study only focuses on the case of the various food industry salt trading cartels in Indonesia.
  • Limited data: The study only uses secondary data, which may not be comprehensive or up-to-date.
  • Limited analysis: The study only analyzes the KPPU decision and does not consider other relevant factors that may influence the proof of cartel agreements.

Future Research Directions

Future research should focus on the following areas:

  • Developing more effective evidence: Researchers should develop more effective and systematic evidence in overcoming cartel practices.
  • Improving data collection and analysis: Researchers should improve the data collection and analysis process to ensure that the evidence presented is strong enough to justify cartel actions.
  • Increasing transparency and accountability: Researchers should increase transparency and accountability in the decision-making process to ensure that the law of business competition is upheld.
  • Providing training and capacity building: Researchers should provide training and capacity building to ensure that law enforcers have the necessary skills and knowledge to prove cartel agreements.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the case of the various food industry salt trading cartels in Indonesia shows the challenges faced by legal authorities in proving violations of business competition. Although there are a number of strong indications about the collusion among the reported parties, the KPPU decision underlined that the existing evidence did not meet the necessary proof standards. Therefore, it is important for policy makers and law enforcers to consider more innovative steps in proving and preventing cartel practices, so that business competition can run fairly and beneficial to the community.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about the Cartel Agreement for the Food Industrial Salt Trade Trade Cartel in Indonesia

Q: What is a cartel agreement?

A: A cartel agreement is an agreement between two or more companies to fix prices, limit production, or divide markets. In the case of the food industrial salt trade cartel in Indonesia, the reported parties allegedly agreed to raise prices simultaneously.

Q: What is the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU)?

A: The KPPU is an independent agency responsible for enforcing business competition laws in Indonesia. Its main objective is to promote fair competition and prevent anti-competitive practices.

Q: What is the significance of the KPPU decision in this case?

A: The KPPU decision is significant because it highlights the challenges faced by legal authorities in proving cartel agreements. Although there are indications of collusion among the reported parties, the KPPU decided that the existing evidence did not meet the necessary proof standards.

Q: What are the implications of the KPPU decision?

A: The KPPU decision has implications for business competition in Indonesia. If the authorities are not successful in proving anti-competitive practices, it can create uncertainty in the market and hamper healthy competition, which in turn will harm consumers.

Q: What are the challenges in proving cartel agreements?

A: Proving cartel agreements is challenging because their violations tend to be hidden and carried out in a very careful way. Indirect evidence such as market behavior patterns and correspondence between business actors must be carefully evaluated.

Q: What are the recommendations for policy makers and law enforcers?

A: The recommendations include developing more effective evidence, improving data collection and analysis, increasing transparency and accountability, and providing training and capacity building to ensure that law enforcers have the necessary skills and knowledge to prove cartel agreements.

Q: What are the limitations of this study?

A: The study has several limitations, including a limited scope, limited data, and limited analysis. Future research should focus on developing more effective evidence, improving data collection and analysis, increasing transparency and accountability, and providing training and capacity building.

Q: What are the future research directions?

A: Future research should focus on developing more effective evidence, improving data collection and analysis, increasing transparency and accountability, and providing training and capacity building. Researchers should also consider other relevant factors that may influence the proof of cartel agreements.

Q: What is the conclusion of this study?

A: The case of the various food industry salt trading cartels in Indonesia shows the challenges faced by legal authorities in proving violations of business competition. Although there are a number of strong indications about the collusion among the reported parties, the KPPU decision underlined that the existing evidence did not meet the necessary proof standards. Therefore, it is important for policy makers and law enforcers to consider more innovative steps in proving and preventing cartel practices, so that business competition can run fairly and beneficial to the community.