Beyond the Numbers: How Digital Evidence Shapes Anti-Corruption Justice in Indonesia

Wishnu Agung Baroto

doi:10.21532/apfjournal.v11i1.485

Authors

Wishnu Agung Baroto Direktorat Jenderal Pajak

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21532/apfjournal.v11i1.485

Keywords:

Digital Evidence, Digital Forensics, Corruption Justice, Evidence Quality, Institutional Capacity, Regional Disparities

Abstract

Digital evidence has become increasingly important in corruption investigations; however, its quality and utilization vary significantly across Indonesia’s judicial system. This study examines how digital evidence influences anti-corruption justice by analyzing institutional capacity, forensic quality, and regional disparities. Using a mixed-methods approach combining quantitative analysis of 1,248 court decisions from 2010–2023 and qualitative document analysis, this study identifies patterns in digital evidence adoption and forensic procedures. The findings reveal a dual-track system in which corruption cases demonstrate substantially higher forensic compliance than other case categories, while significant disparities exist between Jakarta and regional courts. The study argues that legal frameworks alone are insufficient to ensure consistent digital evidence practices, as institutional capacity and resource distribution play critical roles. This research contributes by proposing a reform framework emphasizing tiered standards, regional forensic capacity development, specialized task forces, and procedural improvements.

References

Ades, A. F., & Glaeser, E. L. (1995). Trade and Circuses: Explaining Urban Giants. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(1), 195-227. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118515.

Ali, S., & Bakhtiar, H. S. (2024). Audit Forensik dan Bukti Digital dalam Mengungkap Kasus Korupsi Birokrasi. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan, 15(2), 145-162.

Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). (2012). ACPO Good Practice Guide for Digital Evidence (Version 5.0). National Policing Improvement Agency.

Bhat, W. A., AlZahrani, A., & Wani, M. A. (2021). Can Computer Forensic Tools be Trusted in Digital Investigations?. Science & Justice, 61(2), 198–203.

Buehler, M. (2010). Decentralisation and Local Democracy in Indonesia: The Marginalisation of the Public Sphere. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Butt, S., & Lindsey, T. (2012). The Constitution of Indonesia: A Contextual Analysis. Hart Publishing.

Carrier, B., & Spafford, E. H. (2004). Getting Physical with the Digital Investigation Process. International Journal of Digital Evidence, 2(2), 1-20.

Casey, E. (2011). Digital Evidence and Computer Crime: Forensic Science, Computers, and the Internet (3rd ed.). Academic Press.

Casey, E., & Turnbull, B. (2018). Digital Evidence on Mobile Devices. Academic Press.

Daskal, J. (2015). The Un-Territoriality of Data. The Yale Law Journal, 125(2), 326-398.

Fukuyama, F. (2013). What is Governance?. Governance, 26(3), 347-368. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12035.

Gallagher, M. E. (2006). Mobilizing the Law in China: “Informed Disenchantment” and the Development of Legal Consciousness. Law & Society Review, 40(4), 783-816. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2006.00283.x.

Garfinkel, S. L. (2010). Digital Forensics Research: The Next 10 years. Digital Investigation, 7, S64-S73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diin.2010.05.009.

Garrie, D. B., & Morrissy, R. L. (2014). Digital Forensic Evidence in the Courtroom: Understanding Content and Quality. Northwest Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 12(2), 121-152.

Grindle, M. S. (1997). Getting Good Government: Capacity Building in the Public Sectors of Developing Countries. Harvard Institute for International Development.

Halliday, T. C., & Shaffer, G. (Eds.). (2015). Transnational Legal Orders. Cambridge University Press.

Henderson, J. V. (2002). Urbanization in Developing Countries. The World Bank Research Observer, 17(1), 89-112. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/17.1.89.

Horsman, G., & Sunde, N. (2022). Unboxing the Digital Forensic Investigation Process. Science & Justice, 62(2), 171–180.

Horsman, G. (2023). Digital Evidence Strategies for Digital Forensic Science Examinations. Science & Justice, 63(1), 116–126.

International Organization for Standardization. (2012). ISO/IEC 27037:2012 Information Technology Security Techniques Guidelines for Identification, Collection, Acquisition and Preservation of Digital Evidence. International Organization for Standardization.

International Organization for Standardization. (2015). ISO/IEC 27042:2015 Information Technology Security Techniques Guidelines for the Analysis and Interpretation of Digital Evidence. International Organization for Standardization.

Karie, N. M., & Venter, H. S. (2015). Taxonomy of Challenges for Digital Forensics. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 60(4), 885-893. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.12757

Kerr, O. S. (2005). Digital Evidence and the New Criminal Procedure. Columbia Law Review, 105(1), 279-318.

Komalasari, R., & Mustafa, A. (2023). Implementasi Undang-Undang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum Pidana, 18(3), 234-251.

Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service (30th Anniversary Expanded Edition). Russell Sage Foundation.

Manurung, K., & Harefa, B. (2024). The Validity of Electronic Evidence and its Relation to Personal Data Protection in the Indonesian Legal System. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 18(1), 45-62.

Montasari, R. (2016). A Comprehensive Digital Forensic Investigation Process Model. International Journal of Electronic Security and Digital Forensics, 8(4), 285-302. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESDF.2016.079430.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2019). Resolving Foreign Bribery Cases with non-Trial Resolutions: Settlements and Non-Trial Agreements by Parties to the Anti-Bribery Convention. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264302105-en.

Peerenboom, R. (2002). China’s Long March Toward Rule of Law. Cambridge University Press.

Quick, D., & Choo, K. K. R. (2014). Big Forensic Data Reduction: Digital Forensic Images and Electronic Evidence. Cluster Computing, 17(3), 723-740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-013-0312-6.

Rodden, J. (2004). Comparative Federalism and Decentralization: On Meaning and Measurement. Comparative Politics, 36(4), 481-500. https://doi.org/10.2307/4150172.

Smoke, P. (2001). Fiscal Decentralization in Developing Countries: A Review of Current Concepts and Practice. United Nations Democracy Fund.

Sukmasari, A., Frederik, W., Kalalo, M. E., & Soepeno, M. H. (2024). Application of Electronic Evidence in Corruption Crime Investigations in Indonesia. International Journal of Law and Management, 66(2), 178-195.

Sumilat, R. R. I., & Ginting, G. (2023). Legal Study of the Existence of Electronic Evidence in Corruption Eradication Efforts in Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum dan Pembangunan, 53(4), 823-841.

Sunde, N., & Dror, I. E. (2021). A Hierarchy of Expert Performance (HEP) Applied to Digital Forensics: Reliability and Biasability in Digital Forensics Decision Making. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 37, 301175.

Transparency International. (2018). Corruption Perceptions Index 2018. Transparency International Secre-tariat.

Transparency International. (2023). Corruption Perceptions Index 2023. Transparency International Secre-tariat.

Trubek, D. M., & Santos, A. (Eds.). (2006). The New Law and Economic Development: A Critical Appraisal. Cambridge University Press.

Tully, G., Cohen, N., Compton, D., Davies, G., Isbell, R., & Watson, T. (2020). Quality Standards for Digital Forensics: Learning from Experience in England & Wales. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation, 32, 200905.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2018). State of implementation of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption: Criminalization, Law Enforcement and International Cooperation (2nd ed.). United Nations.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2020). Comprehensive Study on Cybercrime (Draft). United Nations.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2016). United States Seeks to Recover Approximately $1 Billion Obtained from Corruption Involving Malaysian Sovereign Wealth Fund [Press release]. U.S. Department of Justice

Wigana, A., & Maryanto, M. (2020). The Strength of Proof of Telephone Tapping as Electronic Evidence in Corruption Cases. Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum, 27(3), 567-586.