Notwithstanding the two decades that have passed since the
implementation of Law Number 5 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic
Practices and Unfair Business Competition in 1999, the Indonesian
Competition Authority or Komisi Pengawas Persaingan Usaha (KPPU)
continues to face profound difficulties in uncovering cartel activities
and thus in imposing penalties. Therefore, the KPPU strives to use
circumstantial (indirect) evidence in its judicial practice to prove
cartel transgressions. In German Cartel Law, EU Competition Law and in
the US Antitrust practice, the courts also employ indirect
(circumstantial) evidence, namely facilitating practices and
plus-factors, to substantiate cartel infringements. This book compares
the different approaches to implimenting indirect (circumstantial)
evidence in the Indonesian Competition Law to the German and European
Competition Law, both from a procedural as well as a substantial law
perspective.