Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"[ABSTRAKDari semua praktik bisnis yang tidak sehat, Kartel dipersepsikan sebagai bentukpaling berbahaya dari tidakan persaingan usaha karena para pelakunya sepakatmelakukan konspirasi mengenai hal-hal yang bersifat sangat pokok dalam suatutransaksi bisnis. Kartel akan menyebabkan kerugian bagi konsumen. Sifatkerahasiaan kartel menjadi hambatan terbesar bagi otoritas persaingan usahauntuk membuktikkan eksistensi kartel, Indonesia juga mengalami hal tersebut.Untuk sejumlah alasan tersebut, beberapa negara di Barat menggunakanpendekatan per se illegal. Per se illegal memiliki beberapa keunggulandibanding rule of reason dalam mengungkap keberadaan kartel. Tesis inimembahas mengenai pengaturan penerapan pendekatan per se illegal dalamAnti Monopoly Act (AMA) di Jepang dan The Regulation of Monopolies andFair Trade Act (FTA) di Korea Selatan serta kemungkinan penerapanpendekatan per se illegal dalam hukum persaingan di Indonesia. Penelitian iniadalah penelitian yuridis normatif yang menggunakan metode pendekatanperundang-undangan dan pendekatan perbandingan. Hasil penelitianmenyarankan untuk menerapkan ketentuan mengenai pendekatan per se illegalmelalui amandemen Undang-undang Nomor 5 tahun 1999 sejalan dengan itumenambahkan kewenangan KPPU terkait penggeledahan.

---

ABSTRACTFrom of all the unfair business practices, Cartel are perceived as the the mostdangerous from of competitive business, because the principals agreed theconspiracy on matters that are staples in a business transaction. Cartel wouldcause harm to consumers. The confindential nature of cartel has been the biggestobstacle for the Competition authority?s effort to prove the existence of the cartel,Indonesia also experienced it. From some reasons, numerous jurisdictions haveadopted approach of per se illegal. Per se illegal has several advantages comparedto a rule of reason in expose the existence of cartel. This study discussed the ruleon Anti Monopoly Act (AMA) in Japan and The Regulation of Monopolies andFair Trade Act (FTA) in South Korea also addressed the possibility applicationPer Se illegal approach in Indonesia. The study used juridical-normative researchmethod which emphasis on the use of statute and comparative approach. Theresult suggest to implement provisions concerning Per Se Illegal approach troughamandement Law Number 5 year 1999 and in line with the added KPPU?sauthority related search and seizure.;From of all the unfair business practices, Cartel are perceived as the the mostdangerous from of competitive business, because the principals agreed theconspiracy on matters that are staples in a business transaction. Cartel wouldcause harm to consumers. The confindential nature of cartel has been the biggestobstacle for the Competition authority?s effort to prove the existence of the cartel,Indonesia also experienced it. From some reasons, numerous jurisdictions haveadopted approach of per se illegal. Per se illegal has several advantages comparedto a rule of reason in expose the existence of cartel. This study discussed the ruleon Anti Monopoly Act (AMA) in Japan and The Regulation of Monopolies andFair Trade Act (FTA) in South Korea also addressed the possibility applicationPer Se illegal approach in Indonesia. The study used juridical-normative researchmethod which emphasis on the use of statute and comparative approach. Theresult suggest to implement provisions concerning Per Se Illegal approach troughamandement Law Number 5 year 1999 and in line with the added KPPU?sauthority related search and seizure.;From of all the unfair business practices, Cartel are perceived as the the mostdangerous from of competitive business, because the principals agreed theconspiracy on matters that are staples in a business transaction. Cartel wouldcause harm to consumers. The confindential nature of cartel has been the biggestobstacle for the Competition authority?s effort to prove the existence of the cartel,Indonesia also experienced it. From some reasons, numerous jurisdictions haveadopted approach of per se illegal. Per se illegal has several advantages comparedto a rule of reason in expose the existence of cartel. This study discussed the ruleon Anti Monopoly Act (AMA) in Japan and The Regulation of Monopolies andFair Trade Act (FTA) in South Korea also addressed the possibility applicationPer Se illegal approach in Indonesia. The study used juridical-normative researchmethod which emphasis on the use of statute and comparative approach. Theresult suggest to implement provisions concerning Per Se Illegal approach troughamandement Law Number 5 year 1999 and in line with the added KPPU?sauthority related search and seizure.;From of all the unfair business practices, Cartel are perceived as the the mostdangerous from of competitive business, because the principals agreed theconspiracy on matters that are staples in a business transaction. Cartel wouldcause harm to consumers. The confindential nature of cartel has been the biggestobstacle for the Competition authority?s effort to prove the existence of the cartel,Indonesia also experienced it. From some reasons, numerous jurisdictions haveadopted approach of per se illegal. Per se illegal has several advantages comparedto a rule of reason in expose the existence of cartel. This study discussed the ruleon Anti Monopoly Act (AMA) in Japan and The Regulation of Monopolies andFair Trade Act (FTA) in South Korea also addressed the possibility applicationPer Se illegal approach in Indonesia. The study used juridical-normative researchmethod which emphasis on the use of statute and comparative approach. Theresult suggest to implement provisions concerning Per Se Illegal approach troughamandement Law Number 5 year 1999 and in line with the added KPPU?sauthority related search and seizure.;From of all the unfair business practices, Cartel are perceived as the the mostdangerous from of competitive business, because the principals agreed theconspiracy on matters that are staples in a business transaction. Cartel wouldcause harm to consumers. The confindential nature of cartel has been the biggestobstacle for the Competition authority?s effort to prove the existence of the cartel,Indonesia also experienced it. From some reasons, numerous jurisdictions haveadopted approach of per se illegal. Per se illegal has several advantages comparedto a rule of reason in expose the existence of cartel. This study discussed the ruleon Anti Monopoly Act (AMA) in Japan and The Regulation of Monopolies andFair Trade Act (FTA) in South Korea also addressed the possibility applicationPer Se illegal approach in Indonesia. The study used juridical-normative researchmethod which emphasis on the use of statute and comparative approach. Theresult suggest to implement provisions concerning Per Se Illegal approach troughamandement Law Number 5 year 1999 and in line with the added KPPU?sauthority related search and seizure., From of all the unfair business practices, Cartel are perceived as the the mostdangerous from of competitive business, because the principals agreed theconspiracy on matters that are staples in a business transaction. Cartel wouldcause harm to consumers. The confindential nature of cartel has been the biggestobstacle for the Competition authority’s effort to prove the existence of the cartel,Indonesia also experienced it. From some reasons, numerous jurisdictions haveadopted approach of per se illegal. Per se illegal has several advantages comparedto a rule of reason in expose the existence of cartel. This study discussed the ruleon Anti Monopoly Act (AMA) in Japan and The Regulation of Monopolies andFair Trade Act (FTA) in South Korea also addressed the possibility applicationPer Se illegal approach in Indonesia. The study used juridical-normative researchmethod which emphasis on the use of statute and comparative approach. Theresult suggest to implement provisions concerning Per Se Illegal approach troughamandement Law Number 5 year 1999 and in line with the added KPPU’sauthority related search and seizure.]"

"Kartel adalah salah satu bentuk Perjanjian yang dilarang dalam UU Nomor 5 Tahun 1999, karena merupakan bentuk praktik anti persaingan yang dapat merugikan sesama pelaku usaha, konsumen, maupun stablitas perekonomian di Indonesia. Hal-hal tersebut mendorong penulis untuk mengusulkan pemberlakuan leniency program sebagai salah satu cara pembuktian Direct Evidence untuk mengungkap praktik kartel dengan mudah dan cepat. Penelitian ini akan membahas pengaturan leniency program di 2 (dua) negara yaitu Uni Eropa dan Jepang sebagai rujukan dalam penerapannya dengan tetap berdasarkan hukum persaingan usaha di Indonesia serta membahas potensi pemberlakuan leniency program di Indonesia. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif yang menggunakan analisa kualitatif. Pemberlakuan leniency program dalam leniency policy di kedua negara (Uni Eropa dan Jepang) walaupun memiliki konsep yang berbeda-beda tetapi tetap memiliki maksud efektifitas dan efisiensi sebagai tujuan dasar dalam penerapannya. Di Indonesia leniency program sempat diatur dalam Perkom No. 4 Tahun 2010 namun ketentuan mengenai leniency tersebut dicabut karena tidak ada landasan hukumnya walaupun potensi penerapannya sudah terlihat dengan adanya RUU anti monopoli dan persaingan usaha yang diatur dalam pasal 64 akan tetapi pembahasan tersebut belum sempat dilanjutkan sejak tahun 2017. Untuk itu perlu dilakukan amademen terhadap UU No. 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktik Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat sebagai landasan hukum berlakunya leniency program sebagai salah satu solusi instrumen pembuktian praktik kartel di Indonesia, serta membuat leniency policy dalam bentuk guidelines atau Per-KPPU dalam hal pelaksanaan teknis pengimplementasian leniency program.

---

Cartel is one form of agreement prohibited in Law Number 5 Year 1999, because it is a form of anti-competitive practice that can harm fellow business actors, consumers, and economic stability in Indonesia. These matters encourage the author to propose the implementation of the leniency program as a way of proving Direct Evidence to reveal cartel practices easily and quickly. This research will discuss the regulation of leniency program in 2 (two) countries, namely the European Union and Japan as a reference in its application while still based on business competition law in Indonesia and discuss the potential for the implementation of leniency program in Indonesia. This research is a normative legal research that uses qualitative analysis. The implementation of leniency program in leniency policy in both countries (European Union and Japan) although has different concepts but still has the intention of effectiveness and efficiency as the basic goal in its application. In Indonesia, the leniency program was regulated in Perkom No. 4 of 2010, but the provisions regarding leniency were revoked because there was no legal basis, although the potential for its application has been seen with the anti-monopoly and business competition bill regulated in article 64, but the discussion has not been continued since 2017. For this reason, it is necessary to amend Law No. 5 of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition as the legal basis for the enactment of the leniency program as one of the instrument solutions to prove cartel practices in Indonesia, as well as to make a leniency policy in the form of guidelines or Per-KPPU in terms of technical implementation of the leniency program."

"Praktik kartel dalam persaingan usaha seringkali sulit untuk diungkap keberadaannya, karena pada umumnya kartel dilakukan dengan kerahasiaan tingkat tinggi. Menanggapi hal tersebut, muncul leniency program yang pertama kali digagas oleh Antitrust Division Amerika Serikat sebagai suatu kebijakan pemberian insentif terhadap pelaku kartel yang mengakui keikutsertaannya dalam praktik kartel secara sukarela kepada otoritas persaingan usaha, yang kemudian diikuti oleh banyak yurisdiksi sebagai alat pengungkapan dan pembuktian kartel. Indonesia yang juga telah mengatur ketentuan leniency dalam RUU tentang Larangan Praktik Monopoli UU No. 5 Tahun 1999 menemui sejumlah hambatan dalam proses penerapannya. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif yang menggunakan analisa kualitatif mengenai penerapan leniency program di Inggris, Korea selatan, Singapura, dan Australia. Desain pengaturan dan teknis pelaksanaan leniency program pada keempat negara tersebut dijadikan sebagai bahan rujukan terhadap rencana penerapan leniency program di Indonesia dan sekiranya dapat menjadi jalan keluar terhadap hambatan dalam penerapannya di Indonesia.

---

Practice of cartels in competition law are difficult to detect, since cartels are generally carried out with high degree of confidentiality. In response, the US Antitrust Division initiated the leniency program as a policy of incentives for cartel actors who acknowledged their participation by voluntary to competition authorities, then it has followed by many jurisdictions as a means of disclosure and proof of cartels. Indonesia which has also regulated the leniency provisions in RUU tentang Larangan Praktik Monopoli UU No. 5 Tahun 1999 encountered a number of obstacles in its implementation process. This study is a normative legal research using qualitative analysis of leniency program implementation in United Kingdom, South Korea, Singapore, and Australia. The regulatory and technical design of leniency program implementation in those countries are used as reference material to the plan of leniency implementation in Indonesia and if it can be a solution to obstacles in its application in Indonesia. "

"

Kartel adalah hal yang berbahaya, terutama di negara-negara berkembang karena kerusakan pada pasar sering diremehkan. Salah satu cara untuk penegakan hukuman bagi kartel adalah penerapan program keringanan hukuman. Dalam studi ini, implementasi program keringanan hukuman di Brasil, Cina, dan India akan dievaluasi, terutama mengenai tantangannya dalam pelaksanaan implementasi yang efektif. Hambatan di setiap negara diidentifikasi dengan menganalisis tiga pilar implementasi program keringanan hukuman yang efektif yang diberikan oleh Scott D. Hammond. Ketiga negara tersebut berhasil dalam memberi ancaman sanksi berat, meskipun masih berkembang dalam dua pilar lainnya yaitu risiko untuk terdeteksi dan transparansi dalam kebijakan penegakan hukum.

---

Cartels are harmful, especially in emerging countries because the damages to the market are underestimated. One of the means for cartel enforcement entails the implementation of a leniency program. In this study, the implementation of leniency programs in Brazil, China, and India will be evaluated, specifically its challenges in effective implementation. The obstacles in each country are identified by analyzing three cornerstones of effective leniency program implementation provided by Scott D. Hammond. Those three countries are successful in terms of inducing a threat of severe sanctions, although lacking in the two other cornerstones which are perceived risk of detection and transparency in enforcement policies."

"Pelaku usaha cenderungan untuk berusaha mempengaruhi harga baik melalui pengaturan kuota maupun melalui pemasaran produk barang dan/atau jasa pada pasar bersangkutan. Hal ini bertujuan untuk memperoleh keuntungan sebesar-besarnya. Bersama-sama dengan pesaing, pelaku usaha membuat perjanjian pengaturan kuota dan wilayah pemasaran produk pada pasar bersangkutan (perjanjian kartel). Hampir semua negara mengatur mengenai larangan perjanjian kartel tersebut. Dalam menganalisa kartel, terdapat dua macam pendekatan hukum persaingan usaha terhadap kartel yang dipergunakan, yaitu Per Se Illegal dan Rule of Reason. Dalam Antitrust Law Amerika Serikat, kartel diatur dalam Article 1 Sherman Act, dengan pendekatan Per Se Illegal. Sedangkan pengaturan kartel di Indonesia diatur dalam Pasal 11 Undang-undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 menggunakan pendekatan Rule of Reason, berdasarkan pada tujuan dari perjanjian kartel, yaitu bermaksud mempengaruhi harga. Pendekatan tersebut dipergunakan oleh KPPU dalam menganalisa dan memutuskan kasus kartel Tarif Kargo Surabaya-Makassar dan kasus Distribusi Semen Gresik. Hal ini menjadi kelemahan undang-undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1999 dalam pelaksanaan penegakkan kartel di Indonesia, karena Undang-undang tersebut menganalisa penegakkan kartel hanya berdasarkan dampaknya terhadap harga di pasar bersangkutan."

"Kartel adalah salah satu praktik anti persaingan yang dapat merugikan perekonomian, pelaku usaha, maupun konsumen. Kesulitan mengungkap praktik kartel di antara pelaku usaha adalah karena sifat kerahasiannya. Hal-hal tersebut menjadi alasan berlakunya leniency program di berbagai negara sebagai salah satu instrumen untuk membuktikan kartel. Penelitian ini akan membahas pengaturan leniency program di berbagai negara yaitu Amerika Serikat, Uni Eropa, Australia, dan Jepang serta penerapannya menurut hukum persaingan usaha Indonesia. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif yang menggunakan analisa kualitatif. Leniency program yang diatur dalam leniency policy di berbagai negara memiliki desain yang berbeda-beda disesuaikan dengan kebutuhan hukum masing-masing negara. Di Indonesia leniency program sempat diatur dalam Perkom No. 4 Tahun 2010 namun ketentuan mengenai leniency tersebut dicabut karena tidak ada landasan hukumnya. Untuk itu perlu dilakukan amandemen terhadap UU No. 5 Tahun 1999 tentang Larangan Praktik Monopoli dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat sebagai payung hukum berlakunya leniency program sebagai salah satu pilihan instrumen pembuktian kartel di Indonesia.

---

Cartel is one of practices to restrict competition from economic loss that could harm entrepreneurs or even consumers. Difficulty in revealing cartel practice among entrepreneurs is due to its confidentiality which gave birth to leniency program enactment in several countries as an instrument to verify cartel. This research will discuss leniency program in several countries, such as United States, European Union, Australia and Japan, as well as its implementation according to competition law in Indonesia. This research is a normative legal research which uses qualitative analysis. In Indonesia, leniency program once regulated in KPPU Regulation Number 4 Year 2010, but it was revoked due to the absence of legal basis. Therefore Law Number 5 Year 1999 needs amendment as the umbrella act of leniency program enactment which acts as one of cartel verification instruments in Indonesia."

"Skripsi ini membahas tentang dugaan praktik kartel kedelai impor yang dilakukan oleh beberapa perusahaan importir di Indonesia. Dugaan ini timbul setelah adanya tata niaga impor kedelai oleh Kementerian Perdagangan dengan dikeluarkannya Peraturan Menteri Perdagangan No. 45/M-DAG/PER/8/2013. Berdasarkan Surat Persetujuan Impor (SPI) yang diterbitkan, terlihat adanya pembagian kuota impor yang tidak proposional dimana terdapat tiga importir yang memiliki jatah impor melebihi 66 persen dari total kuota impor yang memberikan peluang sangat besar untuk dapat dilakukannya kartel yang melanggar ketentuan Pasal 11 Undang-Undang No. 5 Tahun 1999. Terlebih lagi dugaan ini diperkuat dengan adanya kelangkaan komoditas kedelai di pasar yang mengakibatkan melambungnya harga kedelai di Indonesia sekaligus tercatat sebagai harga kedelai termahal yang pernah ada. Namun pembuktian terjadinya praktik kartel bukanlah perkara yang mudah. Dituntut peran KPPU yang optimal dalam menjalankan fungsinya untuk membuktikan apakah benar terjadi kartel atau tidak.

---

This thesis analyzes the alleged of cartel practices of imported soybeans by some importer companies in Indonesia. These allegations arose after the Trade Ministry made a new trade system of imported soybeans by promulgating the regulation of the Minister of Trade No. 45/M-DAG/PER/8/2013. Based on a letter of approval to import, the division of the import quota to each importers is not propotional, where there were three importers who have more than 66 percent quota of the total import quota. That gives enormous opportunities to be able to do the cartels that violate the provisions of article 11 of Regulation Number 5 Year 1999. Moreover, these allegations were reinforced by the scarcity of soybeans commodity in the market that led to soaring price of soybean in Indonesia and also listed as the most expensive ever. But proving the cartel practices is not an easy matter. Optimal KPPU's role demands in carrying out its functions to prove whether or not the cartel does occur."