Tracing Fraudulent Funds: Could They Be Linked to 2024 Election Campaign Financing?

The author is a student in the Master of Law Program (S2), Faculty of Law, Universitas Sumatera Utara.

JurnalPost.com — Law enforcement regarding fraud should not stop at proving how an individual obtained illicit gains. In cases involving transactions worth billions of rupiah, the use of allegedly forged documents, and the potential involvement of other parties, investigations must be conducted more thoroughly.

One crucial step is to trace the flow of funds to identify the beneficiaries and determine whether money derived from such criminal acts was used for other purposes, including financing political activities.

This issue is relevant to the discussion of alleged fraud involving a member of the Indonesian National Police (Polri). According to initial information, the officer allegedly persuaded several fellow police officers to surrender their official appointment decrees (Skep) with the promise of a reward of approximately Rp30 million.

These documents were allegedly used as collateral to obtain loans from banking institutions. The total loan amount is reported to be around Rp10.2 billion. The alleged actions, which reportedly took place between 2021 and 2025, are also linked to the use of allegedly forged documents, including the falsification of police officials' signatures.

This series of information still requires verification and proof through legal proceedings. However, from a criminal law perspective, the issue becomes more complex if there are indications that some of the funds obtained were used to finance the 2024 election campaign.

If such indications are found, investigators must address two distinct but interrelated issues. First, whether a crime of fraud, document forgery, or another criminal offense has indeed occurred. Second, whether the money obtained was subsequently transferred, spent, laundered, or used to finance political activities.

This distinction is important because proving the predicate offense does not automatically explain the entire journey of the money suspected to be derived from the crime.

Tracing the Flow of Funds as an Expansion of Evidence

In cases involving transactions worth billions of rupiah, investigators need to perform a comprehensive financial reconstruction. This reconstruction must be able to map the relationship between the loan application process, fund disbursement, account usage, cash transactions, asset purchases, and the ultimate beneficiaries.

An investigation is not sufficient if it only proves that someone obtained a loan through allegedly forged documents. Law enforcement must also ensure where the disbursed funds were channeled and for whose benefit the money was used.

Tracing can be conducted through the examination of bank accounts, credit disbursement documents, transaction records, electronic communications, asset purchase documents, and statements from parties who received or transferred the funds.

If transactions suspected of being related to the 2024 election campaign are found, investigators must examine the timing of the transactions, the origin of the funds, the purpose of the payments, the parties who ordered the fund transfers, and the parties who obtained the economic benefits.

Through this approach, the investigation will not only produce a chronology of the alleged crime but also a map of fund movements that can be used to identify the potential involvement of other parties or subsequent criminal acts.

Alleged Campaign Financing and the Relevance of Money Laundering

If there are indications that money obtained through fraud was used to finance the 2024 election campaign, law enforcement must consider the possibility of money laundering.

Historically, regulations regarding money laundering are contained in Law Number 8 of 2010 concerning the Prevention and Eradication of the Crime of Money Laundering.

Article 2 paragraph (1) of that law includes fraud as one of the predicate offenses whose proceeds can be the object of money laundering. The provision also includes currency forgery, which must be distinguished from document forgery.

Meanwhile, Article 3, Article 4, and Article 5 regulate various forms of money laundering, including placing, transferring, diverting, spending, concealing, or using assets known or reasonably suspected to be derived from criminal acts, in accordance with the elements of each provision.

However, since the enactment of the national Criminal Code (KUHP) on January 2, 2026, these money laundering provisions have been integrated into Article 607 and Article 608 of the Criminal Code. Therefore, the application of law to alleged acts occurring between 2021 and 2025 must consider the transitional provisions and the criminal law in effect at the time the act was committed.

In the context of campaign financing, the use of money derived from criminal acts does not automatically prove that money laundering has occurred.

Investigators must still prove the origin of the assets, the form of the act committed, the element of knowledge or circumstances required by law, and other legal elements.

The important question is whether the funds were used directly by the party suspected of committing the fraud or were first transferred through someone else's account, mixed with legitimate funds, used to purchase assets, or distributed through specific parties.

If such a transaction pattern is found, investigators have grounds to delve into the possibility of money laundering. However, every conclusion must be based on valid evidence, not merely on suspicion or the magnitude of the transaction value.

Tracing the Relationship between Proceeds of Crime and 2024 Election Campaign Funds

Tracing the potential use of proceeds of crime for political activities must be done carefully and based on evidence.

A person's status as a legislator, political party official, spouse of a suspect, or a party who obtained political benefits does not in itself prove involvement in a crime.

Investigators need to find a concrete link between the funds suspected of being derived from criminal acts and campaign expenditures.

This relationship can be traced through payments for political consultants, production of campaign materials, meetings with voters, provision of transportation, payments to campaign teams, or other expenses that can be identified through transaction evidence.

The aspect of time is also an important part of the evidence.

If the alleged acts took place from 2021 to 2025, not all funds obtained during that period can be directly linked to the 2024 election.

Investigators must distinguish between the date of loan disbursement, the date of fund transfer, the timing of expenditures, and the date of the campaign activities suspected of receiving the funding.

Furthermore, financial transaction records can be compared with the campaign fund reports submitted to election organizers.

If discrepancies are found between the reports and actual transactions, these findings can serve as leads for further investigation. However, data differences cannot be immediately considered as proof that a crime has occurred.

It is necessary to determine whether the transactions fall into the category of campaign funds that must be reported, who is responsible, and whether the alleged violations fall under the realm of election administration or meet the elements of a specific criminal offense.

Thus, handling allegations of fraud, money laundering, and campaign finance violations must be carried out through inter-agency coordination without conflating their respective authorities.

The Role of the PPATK, Banking, and Law Enforcement Coordination

Tracing the flow of funds in such cases may involve the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Center (PPATK) in accordance with its authority.

Through financial transaction analysis, the PPATK can help identify unusual transaction patterns, relationships between accounts, movement of funds, and the potential use of other parties as intermediaries.

This information can be a vital resource for investigators to develop inquiries into the origin and use of the funds.

However, the results of the PPATK analysis are not a substitute for criminal proof in court. Financial information must still be developed through the investigation process, document examination, witness statements, expert testimony if necessary, and other valid evidence.

Similarly, large-value transactions do not always indicate money laundering. Assessments must consider the context of the transaction and the relevant elements of the crime.

On the other hand, banking institutions play an important role in providing information regarding the credit application process, applicant identity, collateral documents, disbursement accounts, and transaction history after funds are disbursed.

If there are allegations of forged official signatures or supporting documents, verifying the authenticity of the documents and credit verification procedures is a necessary step.

Such an examination can help explain how the loan was obtained, whether there were weaknesses in the verification process, and the possibility of other parties who knew about or assisted in the act.

Coordination can also be carried out with agencies authorized to handle election violations if evidence is found pointing to the use of funds for campaign purposes.

Accountability of Parties Assisting or Receiving Funds

If the tracing results reveal that other parties received or used funds derived from criminal acts, their criminal liability must be assessed based on their respective roles, actions, and knowledge.

Parties who knowingly assist in loan applications using forged documents, arrange fund transfers, disguise the origin of assets, or receive proceeds of crime under circumstances that meet the elements of an offense can be further investigated.

However, family relationships, political positions, party membership, or status as a transfer recipient are not sufficient to conclude that someone has committed a crime.

Investigators need to distinguish between parties who knew the origin of the funds, parties who played an active role in the series of acts, and parties who may have received money without knowing the source of the funds.

This distinction determines whether someone can be held accountable as a perpetrator, a party who participated in or assisted in the crime, a money launderer, or whether they have no basis for criminal liability.

If funds suspected of being derived from crime were used for the campaign interests of a specific candidate, investigators must also prove whether the beneficiary knew about or was involved in the use of those funds.

The political advantage someone might gain should not be considered a substitute for evidence of individual wrongdoing.

This principle of caution is important to ensure that the law enforcement process remains objective while respecting the presumption of innocence.

Asset Recovery and Public Interest

Tracing the flow of funds is not only aimed at expanding criminal liability but also at identifying assets that can be recovered in accordance with legal provisions.

If it is proven that there are assets derived from criminal acts, law enforcement can consider actions such as seizure, forfeiture, returning assets to rightful parties, or other recovery mechanisms in accordance with applicable regulations.

Such efforts are important because punishing the perpetrator does not always mean that all proceeds of the crime have been successfully found or returned.

Without comprehensive asset tracing, there is a possibility that someone may serve a prison sentence while the proceeds of the crime remain controlled or enjoyed by other parties.

Nevertheless, asset recovery must be carried out through appropriate legal mechanisms.

Funds or assets that are successfully found cannot be automatically allocated for specific purposes without considering the rights of victims, the legal status of the assets, and the basis for their seizure or forfeiture.

Therefore, asset tracing needs to be directed toward ensuring that the proceeds of crime are not enjoyed by unauthorized parties while opening opportunities for victim loss recovery according to the law.

Law Enforcement Must Not Stop at the Main Perpetrator

The alleged fraud using police appointment documents as collateral for multi-billion rupiah loans should be viewed not only as a matter of crime against documents or banking institutions.

If there is initial evidence indicating that the funds were used to finance the 2024 election campaign, law enforcement needs to trace the potential relationship between the predicate offense, the movement of funds, the beneficiaries, and money laundering.

This approach requires an investigation oriented toward the flow of funds, not merely the identity of the party suspected of committing the crime.

At least three fundamental questions need to be answered: where did the money come from, where did the money flow, and who knew about and enjoyed the results.

Ultimately, the success of law enforcement is not measured only by proving the crime and sentencing the perpetrator. Success must also be seen in the state's ability to uncover transaction networks, hold proven parties accountable, and recover assets in accordance with legal provisions.

If the alleged use of proceeds of crime for campaign financing can be legally proven, such disclosure will be an important part of efforts to maintain the integrity of the election.

Comprehensive law enforcement is necessary so that the proceeds of crime do not turn into a source of economic or political power that could damage public trust in the democratic process.