AYER Vol. 27 No.

1 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/128

Managing Evidence of Tax Crime in Indonesia: AYER

An Artificial Intelligence Approach in Integrated Vol. 27 No. 1 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/a
Criminal Justice System rticle/view/128
How to Cite:

Andhy Hermawan Bolifaar1, Henry Dianto Pardamean Sinaga2 Andhy Hermawan Bolifaar, & Henry
Dianto Pardamean Sinaga. (2020).
Doctoral
1,2
Program of Law, Universitas Diponegoro,
Managing Evidence Of Tax Crime In
Semarang, Indonesia Indonesia: An Artificial Intelligence
Email: bolifaar@gmail.com Approach In Integrated Criminal Justice
System. A Y E R Journal, 27(1), 143 - 158.
Editorial: Revista de la Asociación de
Abstract
Historia Contemporánea (AHC),
coeditada por la AHC y Marcial Pons-
The series of tax investigator’s acts to find and collect Ediciones de Historia.
evidence in determining the suspects shows that evidence ISSN: 1134-2277 | ISSN Electrónico:

plays an important role in integrated criminal justice system 2255-5838

 Informes de citas de revistas de ISI.
(ICJS). However, several problems, such as the evidence that
Factor de Impacto: 0.318, Q3
is not in line with its legal objectives, acquisition of evidence  SCImago (Scopus-Elsevier). Factor
without clear authority, inadequate operational procedures de impacto SJR: 0.17, Q2
and management standards, and misuse of evidence, have  MIAR. Factor de Impacto: 10,9

ignored the equality before the law and checks and

==Open Access=
balances principles, especially in the current fourth industrial
revolution era. Such problems would be detrimental to the stakeholders due to the emergence of
the fourth revolution is based on the expectation of every organization (including tax authority) to
generate a high level of service, output, and productivity. Based on the doctrinal legal study
applying stakeholder theory in addressing the challenge of artificial intelligence (AI), two
conclusions are generated. First, tax crime evidence and confiscation administration and evidence
data and monthly reports are manually done, unintegrated, and less accurate, and evidence
management at each ICJS stages is not transparent. Second, the management of tax crime
evidence in an ICJS based on AI is a fair normative basis for stakeholders (both internal and
external) legitimacy, as internal stakeholders in the ICJS can be more transparent, objective,
accurate, and can mutually check and balance each other, while external stakeholders (such as the
publics and nongovernmental organizations) can control evidence/confiscation in every stages on
the ICJS.

143
AYER Vol. 27 No. 1 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/128

Keywords: Tax Investigation, Evidence, Artificial Intelligence, Stakeholder.

A. INTRODUCTION

The mandate of Article 23A of the Fourth Amendment to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of
Indonesia states that every tax collection in Indonesia must be based on law, constitute an integral
part and inseparable from the affirmation of the Indonesian state as a rule of law, and affirmation
of the state civil apparatus (ASN). In order to uphold the equality before the law principle and
checks and balances principle, in the event of law enforcement against taxpayers, including tax
crime investigations.

Investigation of criminal offenses in the field of taxation, which among others is formulated in
Article 38, Article 39, Article 39A, Article 41, Article 41A, Article 41B, Article 41C, Article 43 of Law
Number 6 Year 1983 concerning General Provisions and Tax Procedures as has been several times
most recently amended by Law Number 16 of 2009 concerning Stipulation of Government
Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 5 of 2008 concerning the Fourth Amendment of Law Number 6
of 1983 concerning General Provisions and Tax Procedures to Become Law (UU KUP), Article 24
and Article 25 paragraph (1) UU no. 12 of 1994 concerning Amendments to Law no. 12 of 1985
concerning Land and Building Tax (UN Law), and Article 41A of Law Number 19 of 1997 concerning
Tax Collection by Force Letter as amended by Law Number 19 of 2000 (UU PPSP), are a series of
actions taken by investigators to seek as well as gathering evidence with that evidence sheds light
on the tax crime that has occurred and finds the suspect. However, a series of actions to seek and
collect evidence have the potential to ignore the equality before the law and checks and balances
principles in their implementation, as stated by the Ministry of Law and Human Rights of the
Republic of Indonesia (Kemenkumham) and Bolifar (2019). The Ministry of Law and Human Rights
stated that the practice of enforcing the law against proceeds of crime as evidence of a crime
(corpus delicti) in criminal proceedings is often inconsistent with the purpose of the law itself,
namely obtaining proportional truth. Indeed, in a criminal case, it really requires coercion in the
form of confiscation of goods or objects to be used as evidence, but sometimes such evidence is
obtained without authority, without proper operational and management standards, and in
practice, it is often misused by certain parties, such as the loss of evidence, misuse of evidence, and
so on with various modes and motives (bphn.go.id). Then, Bolifar (2019) emphasized that the
administration of evidence and booty / confiscated items from investigators received by the Public
Prosecutor's Office (Kejari) has been done manually and is not integrated, monthly reports are

144
AYER Vol. 27 No. 1 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/128

made manually and are inaccurate. Data on evidence and confiscated/seized goods are inaccurate
and not transparent in the management of evidence.

Of course, ignoring the equality before the law and checks and balances principles in terms of
confiscation and management of tax crime evidence can have a negative impact on the level of
legal compliance (tax). According to the Reksodiputro, this can lead to injustice and injustice, so it
must be avoided considering that in law enforcement it is very necessary to prioritize a moral
approach and look at the reality or reality in the social and economic field of society considering
that citizens will obey State regulations only if they truly believe that regulations and Law
enforcement are fair to them (Reksodiputro, 2018), and according to Muladi & Arief (2010) it can
lead to criminal disparities which can indicate the failure of a system to achieve equality of justice in
a rule of law and at the same time can weaken public confidence in the criminal law administration
system.

Any problem in confiscating evidence of this crime must be handled and monitored jointly by
stakeholders in Indonesia, such as the internal party of the Directorate General of Taxes (DGT)
itself, the Attorney General's Office, the Police, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). ), The
suspect and his legal advisor, and the public. This is very necessary and urgent to do in order to
ensure that equal position in law has been implemented, as well as equal rights and obligations in
politics, society and culture for all citizens with all the grounds for acting in the confiscation must
be based on law. This has been emphasized by Lipton (1956) who reminded that in addition to the
investigation of a tax crime, it must be able to provide strong evidence to the prosecutor, but the
investigation must also be aware of the taxpayers' constitutional rights regarding the records and
information required in the investigation.

One solution that is expected to be able to overcome problems, potential conflicts, and potential
abuse arising in the confiscation of evidence of taxation crimes can be done through the
involvement of artificial intelligent (AI) in the era of the industrial revolution 4.0. Currently, the era
according to Lim is a world that includes the emergence of AI, robots, automatic machine-
controlled algorithmic transport, automatic weapon systems, algorithmic applications/software
based on predictable behaviour, and social media attacks. which is changing very rapidly (Lim,
2019), and according to Kumar et al. (2019) as an era that cannot be separated from the existence
of intelligence that occurs through the use of cloud computing, Internet of Things (IoT), and cyber-
physical systems. Furthermore, Kumar et al. (2019), and Freeman (1984) emphasize that neglect of

145
AYER Vol. 27 No. 1 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/128

the 4.0 industrial revolution will only harm stakeholders, which in this case is identical to any group
or individual that can influence or be influenced by the achievement of organizational or company
goals, given that their emergence is based on the wishes of each an organization that must
implement a sustainable business process capable of producing a high level of service and a much
better quality of output, as well as which can increase productivity quickly and with quality.

More specifically about AI, Economou (2017) emphasizes that AI and hybrid intelligence systems
can be integrated into every sphere of society to the administration of the welfare state for the
benefit of humanity even though slowly, deliberately and, (to date) it is still not perfect. This can be
seen from several principles inherent in AI, such as advancing human welfare, being transparent,
having an accountability system from AI producers and operators, being effective, being managed
by operators who have the appropriate competence, having norms for delegating decisions to AI
systems that must be codified through dialogue. inclusive with civil society (Economou, 2017).

In order to answer the problems that occur in the confiscation of evidence, this article presents two
main problem formulations. First, how is the management of evidence of tax crime in Indonesia at
this time? Second, how to manage the ideal tax crime evidence in an integrated criminal justice
system based on artificial intelligence.

B. METHOD

The approach used in this research is juridical normative, which is a prescriptive study, which views
the law in its form as a rule, which determines what is allowed and what cannot be done (Webley,
2010; Ali & Heryani, 2013; McConville, 2017). Normative research maintains (rules) of applicable law
and studies them rationally, rationalism or an approach that idealizes deductive work, considering
that human knowledge about the world is the result of deduction from a priori truths that are
clearly known by human reason (Susanto, 2015).

In Indonesia, the normative research method is also known as the doctrinal method
(Wignjosoebroto, 2002), because it is a research on a law that is conceptualized and developed on
the basis of the doctrines adhered to by the concept and its developers. This doctrinal
understanding is also in line with Hutchinson's thinking, which describes it as a systematic study of
rules that govern certain legal categories, which analyzes the relationship between rules, which
explains areas of difficulty, and (possibly) predicts future developments (Marzuki, 2014).

146
AYER Vol. 27 No. 1 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/128

This normative legal research emphasizes on theoretical speculative steps and normative-
qualitative analysis based on secondary data (library research) which includes research on legal
principles, research on legal systematics, research on vertical and horizontal synchronization levels,
research on comparative laws, and legal history (Soemitro, 1990). Secondary data consists of
primary legal materials, secondary legal materials, and tertiary legal materials. Primary legal
materials are binding legal materials consisting of laws and regulations relating to taxation, criminal
law, and technology law. The secondary legal materials used consist of textbooks, articles, seminar
results, research results, dictionaries, and journals in the fields of taxation, law and technology.
Meanwhile, the tertiary legal materials used are in the form of a legal dictionary, encyclopedia, web
site, and other tertiary legal materials (Soekanto & Mamudji, 2007).

C. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

147
AYER Vol. 27 No. 1 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/128

Tax law in Indonesia is part of the administrative penal law, so all tax officers' actions
towards the public must go through good and correct legal procedures. Including when
carrying out law enforcement or investigating tax crimes, law enforcers must understand
that tax criminal investigations must be carried out in the context of an ultimum remedium
while upholding the principle of presumption of innocence (Sinaga, 2017).

To ensure the equality before the law and checks and balances principles is not neglected
in the process of confiscation and management of tax crime evidence, investigation as one
of the components in an integrated criminal justice system (investigation, prosecution,
court and correctional facility) must be operated in the form of network. The principle of
equality before the law which is indisputable by its validity, with its legal doctrine which is
neutral, impartial, impersonal and objective (Samekto, 2005) and the principle of checks
and balances as a system that oversees each other in a balanced manner is a counterpart
of the trias politica system needed in a state administration system related to humans, as a
state administration that has a tendency to expand, extend, and abuse power by ignoring
people's rights (Fuady, 2009).

Guaranteeing the implementation of the equality before the law and checks and balances
principles really require the use of AI technology and active participation of stakeholders,
considering that the relationship lies in stakeholder theory which seeks to deal with three
interrelated problems (how value is created, how to connect ethics and capitalism, and
how to assist the managerial mindset in linking explicitly to better values and ethics) in
business, group, and individual relationships, and in modern-day decision-making
techniques that seem to make individuals unaware of whether their decisions are accurate
and/or fair (Parmar et al. al., 2010). So it is hoped that AI, which according to Stern (2018) is
a means that can help legal practice, improve transparency, and increase the efficiency of
legal professional work so that it becomes deeper and wider in the scope of expertise, has
implications for the basic rights of justice, accountability, and transparency for real human
life, including in law (The Public Choice, 2018).

Furthermore, the use of AI and the active participation of civil society as tax stakeholders can test
two potential correspondences, namely the recognition of certain interests through mapping into

148
AYER Vol. 27 No. 1 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/128

an aggregation of autonomous interests between individuals and groups and the business
environment, and the capacity of third parties. to assert itself as an external party to the
government, that is, an external party capable of exerting pressure on governance (if it does not
work properly), such as the existence of a non-government organization (NGO) or an independent
supervisory body outside the government (Bonnafous-Boucher & Porcher, 2010).

What is meant by stakeholders in the bureaucracy, including DGT institutions, can be individuals
who come from the community, community leaders, religious leaders, officials from the public,
private organizations who are influential or influenced by a policy/program/activity of public
organizations in order to provide added value to the bureaucratic organization (Bolifaar, 2019).
Furthermore, Bolifaar (2019) argues that stakeholders in a government organization consist of
internal and external stakeholders, each of which has a different role. Internal stakeholders are
stakeholders who are still in the same agency where the change project is carried out, which can
influence (positive/negative) on the activities and existence of the agency. Meanwhile, external
stakeholders are stakeholders who come from outside the agency where a change project is
implemented, which has an influence (positive/negative) on the activities and existence of the
agency. Thus, the existence of civil society-based stakeholders will increasingly demonstrate the
obligation of law enforcers to protect the common good against the arbitrary actions of certain
individuals.

Arrangement of Evidence of Tax Crime

Investigation of tax crimes in Indonesia must be based on preliminary evidence

examinations as confirmed in Article 43A paragraph (1) of the Law on General Provisions
and Tax Administration (KUP) that the initial evidence examination must be carried out
based on information, data, reports, and complaints, and then in Article 1 point 26 of the
KUP Law it is affirmed that the initial evidence is a condition, action, and/or evidence in the
form of information, writing, or objects that can provide an indication of a strong suspicion
that there is or has been a criminal offence in the field of taxation committed by anyone.
which can cause losses to state revenue (Sinaga, 2018). The Preliminary Evidence
Examination conducted by the DGT has similarities with the investigations stipulated in
Article 1 number 4 of Law Number 8 of 1981 Concerning the Criminal Procedure Code
(KUHAP), Investigation, which is a series of actions by investigators to search for and find

149
AYER Vol. 27 No. 1 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/128

an alleged event. as a criminal act in order to determine whether or not an investigation

can be carried out according to the manner stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Code.
Then, in the event that sufficient preliminary evidence is found which in the preliminary
evidence examination report has been filled with facts describing the alleged article under
suspicion, modus operandi, tempus delicti, locus delicti, alleged tax offender, potential
witnesses, evidence material, and there is a loss in state revenue, so as long as the
taxpayer does not self-disclose the incorrect tax return (SPT), it will be increased to
investigate tax crime. Tax crime investigations that can only be carried out by DGT Civil
Servant Investigators (PPNS) in conducting an investigation must notify the
commencement of the investigation and submit the results of the investigation to the
public prosecutor through investigating officers of the State Police of the Republic of
Indonesia. So that afterwards, the DJP PPNS can exercise its authority based on Article 44
paragraph (2) of the Law on General Provisions and Tax Administration (KUP), which is
authorized to:

(A). receive, seek, collect and examine information or reports relating to criminal offences in
the field of taxation so that the information or report becomes more complete and clear;
(b). researching, searching for, and collecting information regarding individuals or bodies
regarding the correctness of acts committed in connection with criminal offences in the
field of taxation; (c). request information and evidence from individuals or bodies in
connection with criminal offences in the field of taxation; (d). examining books, records, and
other documents relating to criminal offences in the field of taxation; (e). conduct searches
to obtain bookkeeping evidence, records, and other documents, as well as confiscate such
evidence; (f). request assistance from experts in the context of carrying out duties of
investigating criminal acts in the field of taxation; (g). order to stop and/or prohibit
someone from leaving the room or place while the examination is in progress and check
the identity of the person, object and/or document being carried; (h). photographing
someone related to a criminal offence in the field of taxation; (i). summon people to hear
their statements and be examined as suspects or witnesses; (j). stop investigations; and / or
(k). take other actions necessary for the smooth investigation of criminal offences in the
field of taxation according to the provisions of laws and regulations.

150
AYER Vol. 27 No. 1 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/128

The authority of Article 44 paragraph (2) of the KUP Law which is owned by the Tax PPNS is in line
with Article 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code which authorizes investigators to confiscate objects
and or tools and or evidence. And for the objects and or tools and or evidence from it and for this
purpose, PPNS Taxes must give a confiscation certificate that has received permission from the PN.
Confiscation carried out by PPNS Taxes must be based on Article 39 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, which contains limits on objects that can be subject to confiscation, namely:

(1). Objects or claims of the suspect or defendant which are wholly or partly alleged to have
been obtained from a criminal act or as the result of a criminal act; (2). Objects that have
been used directly to commit a criminal act or to prepare; (3). Objects that are used to
obstruct a criminal investigation; (4). Objects specifically made or intended to commit a
criminal act; (5). Other objects that have a direct relationship with the criminal act
committed; (6). Objects that are confiscated due to civil cases or bankruptcy can also be
confiscated for the purpose of investigating, prosecuting and adjudicating criminal cases”.

An investigation into a tax crime in Indonesia is based on the discovery of sufficient preliminary
evidence in the preliminary evidence examination report which in fact must describe the alleged
articles being suspected, modus operandi, tempus delicti, locus delicti, the alleged perpetrators of
criminal taxation, at least 2 (two) potential witnesses, evidence, and alleged losses to state
revenues. The flow from the preliminary evidence examination process to the tax crime
investigation process shows that the evidence material in the preliminary evidence examination will
be one of the most important evidence items in the handling of tax crime cases. Then, the
evidence must be obtained by the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS) of the Directorate General of
Taxes (DJP) and must refer to the applicable KUP and KUHAP Law.

The urgency of evidence in a tax crime cannot be separated from the definition of a tax crime
investigation as a series of actions carried out by investigators to seek and collect evidence which
with this evidence sheds light on the taxation crime that has occurred and finds the suspect, and
the existence of Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code. as one of the most important things in
prosecution and trial at the District Court (PN) which confirms the existence of five valid evidence in
a criminal trial, namely witness testimony, expert testimony, letters, instructions, and/or testimony
of the defendant. At least two pieces of evidence must be in accordance with and at the same time
also correspond to the evidence obtained by PPNS. The urgency of evidence in taxation crimes is
also in line with the anti-money laundering regime, as stipulated in provision E (1) (d) Circular

151
AYER Vol. 27 No. 1 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/128

Number SE-32 / PJ / 2017 concerning Guidelines for the Implementation of Tax Crime Investigation
which is Followed Up with Follow-Up Investigations. The Money Laundering Crime has affirmed
that the DGT PPNS can confiscate assets or objects suspected to be directly or indirectly related to
the crime of money laundering that has occurred for the purpose of proving and/or returning the
proceeds of crime (asset recovery) in the investigation of the criminal money laundering crime.

Management of Tax Criminal Evidence in an Artificial Intelligent Based Criminal Justice System

As part of the ICJS in Indonesia, the investigation of tax crimes carried out by the DGT PPNS in
carrying out their duties and responsibilities must be reliable, tough, professional, moral, and
ethical in their efforts to enforce fair law and other duties related to upholding the law. The
principle of presumption of innocence and the principle of equality before the law.

According to Siegel (2011), the ICJS is one of the social control instruments of society considering
that there are several behaviours that are considered very dangerous so that only ICJS has the
power to control crimes that occur and punish those who violate the law. ICJS which involves law
enforcement agencies, each of which has its own function, must enforce the law based on
proportional principles so that in such a way it does not only enforce normative rules (aspects of
legal certainty) but also philosophical aspects (aspects and values of justice). Furthermore,
Dananjaya (2014) emphasizes that if the integration in the ICJS does not work well, it is expected
that there will be difficulties in assessing the success or failure of each of these institutions on their
own, there are difficulties in solving the main problems of the institution by themselves, and
creating responsibility. each institution becomes less clear. Furthermore, Siegel (2011) describes the
interrelationship of the Criminal Justice System and the Criminal Justice Process, where
investigators have processes for contact, investigation, detention, custody, and seizure, prosecutors
have a business process to prosecute and execute judges and judges' decisions. has processes for
adjudication, disposition, conviction, and postconviction remedies.

The ICJS inadequacy causes losses to the parties, which in this case is related to the management
of tax crime evidence, which is currently still manual and not integrated, reporting that is still
manual, inaccurate data on evidence, and lack of transparency in the management of evidence. As
well as the many demands that the performance of law enforcers, including the DGT PPNS, can run
more effectively, efficiently, transparently, accountably and optimally, we must immediately find a
way out through the use of AI technology and the active role of stakeholders (Bolifaar, 2018).

152
AYER Vol. 27 No. 1 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/128

Especially for the management of evidence in internal tax crime investigations, it is necessary to
consider the design and use of AI, which according to The Public Voice and Pitchai, must still
consider matters including rights, obligations, and responsibility. Rights that need to be considered
are right to transparency (every individual has the right to know the basis of AI decisions, including
access to factors, logic, and techniques that produce the results), and right to human
determination (every individual has the right to participate in a decision end). The obligations in the
design and use of AI include identification obligations (the obligation to notify the institutions
responsible for the AI system to the public), fairness obligations (AI systems are not biased and
unfair or do not make discriminatory decisions), assessment, public safety, cybersecurity, and
accountability obligation (the AI system must be used after an adequate evaluation and there must
be the responsibility for the AI system being created), accuracy, data reliability, validity, and quality
obligation (the institution must determine the data source, and ensure the quality and relevance of
the data inputted), termination obligation (the institution has an affirmative obligation to stop AI
systems if human control is no longer possible) (The Public Choice, 2018). Meanwhile, responsibility
in the design and use of AI relates to responsibilities to AI system users, responsibility for holding
work confidentiality (professional liability), and responsibility to always uphold the standards of
scientific excellence (Pichai, 2018).

Although AI is a technology that has the power to reshape daily practices, personal, professional,
and environmental interactions, it must be managed to mitigate the risks that arise, but new and
updated techniques are always needed to explain the decision-making process of an AI system
that is always evolving to assess the benefits and risks of AI and for the ethical design and use of
AI, thereby avoiding mistakes and reducing the risk of abuse. In addition, often a decision or action
based on AI is the result of countless interactions between many actors who have multiple
interpretations, such as operators, designers, developers, users, software, and hardware, so that an
ethical framework is needed in dealing with actors. Actors involved, namely through strengthening
the responsibility of the humans involved so that penalties or rewards based on the actions and
intentions of these actors can be allocated (Taddeo & Floridi, 2018).

Considerations in designing and using AI and its effects and the need for an ethical framework
show that stakeholder principles, whose normative justification can relate to the common good,
risk, ethics, and the principles of fair play (fairness), are sufficient to establish a practice. moral
responsibility practices that are able to separate the responsibilities of the actors involved in AI
(based on the intention to take certain actions or the ability to control the outcome), and expand

153
AYER Vol. 27 No. 1 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/128

the ethical analysis to account for the invisible influence that AI has on human behaviour (Phillips et
al. al., 2003; Taddeo & Floridi, 2018).

Furthermore, to design the management of tax crime evidence based on AI in ICJS, it is important
to implement it in three ways that are more ethically aligned as based on Polonski's (2018)
experience in AI learning guided by an explicit definition of ethical behaviour, crowdsourcing
human morality. , and the existence of a transparent AI system, all of which can be done through
IoT through information system technology, QR Code technology, and Android Hand Phone (HP).
Through a network that utilizes IoT, the AI system in managing evidence of tax crime can be
accessed by interested parties, such as Witnesses, Experts, or Suspects, from which related
evidence is confiscated, Research Attorneys for related cases, and PN authorized to issue permits.
seized and will prosecute if the prosecutor has submitted a trial. The recommendations put forward
by Polonski are the starting point for developing an AI system that is ethically aligned, given that
failure to embed ethics into an AI system will put users in a dangerous situation. Polonski gave an
example with an inevitable accident situation, a self-driving car needs to make a decision whether it
will get better or worse, where if the car designer fails to determine a set of ethical values that
guide AI system decisions it can actually provide a detrimental solution. Indeed, machines cannot
be considered morally attached to behaviour, but humans must teach what morality is and how
morality can be measured and optimized. This is a difficult task but it is not impossible to
implement (Taddeo & Floridi, 2018).

The definition of ethical behaviour explicitly in the management of evidence of a criminal act is
carried out through the formulation of ethical values in the form of measurable parameters, such
as evidence that is not related to the tax crime case handled, whether there is a conflict of interest
between the suspect and PPNS or the prosecutor. Researchers, evidence that must be supported
by a QR Code. As for crowdsourcing human morality relates to the efforts of
operators/programmers to collect sufficient data on ethical steps to properly train AI algorithms,
given that ethical norms cannot always be clearly standardized because every different situation
requires a different ethical approach, and in some situations, there may be no ethical action at all
(Taddeo & Floridi, 2018). Implementation in the management of tax crime evidence is the creation
of computer machine terminals that are able to show how crowdsourced data can be used to
effectively train machines to make better moral decisions in sorting evidence related to tax-related
crimes, able to tell where the current position the evidence that is sought and in what condition.
However, it must still be considered that there are strong cross-cultural differences between the

154
AYER Vol. 27 No. 1 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/128

legal structures in the ICJS because the legal culture in PPNS DJP is not the same as the legal
culture in the Prosecutor's Office and in the Court.

A transparent AI system deals with policies to implement guidelines that make AI decisions more
transparent. The transparency referred to is related to the transparency of programmers or
operators who are able to quantify ethical values before programming them and the results that AI
has produced as a result of the quantified choices of ethical values, because it is impossible to
demand algorithmic transparency technically for and it is impossible to always blame algorithms as
an excuse when AI systems make mistakes or make undesirable consequences (Taddeo & Floridi,
2018). For the management of evidence of tax crime, it can be done through making electronic
barcode labels on the evidence, so that if there is a misuse of the evidence before a judge's
decision has permanent legal force (Eintracht) which determines control of the evidence, interested
stakeholders can examine the goods. Evidence that is not in place by conducting a scanner directly
using an Android cellphone that has an electronic barcode label reader application installed in the
evidence.

The existence of considerations in designing and using AI and AI learning guidelines in the
management of tax crime evidence in the AI-based ICJS can be implemented through parties who
can influence and can be influenced in the tax crime investigation subsystem, as described in Table
1 below. :

Table 1 Description of Stakeholders in Managing Evidence of Taxation Crime Based on Artificial

Intelligence (AI)

No. Stakeholders Role

1. PPNS DJP As a part of the ICJS, as the party conducting the investigation,
the case files contain evidence that must be submitted to the
Prosecutor if the case file is P-21.
2. Prosecutor As a part of the ICJS, as the recipient of the abundance of case
files and evidence from the PPNS DJP, and as the prosecutor
and executor of judicial decisions.
As the holder of the supremacy of prosecution, prosecutors on
duty have the authority to monitor and to control the handling
of evidence that has been carried out by PPNS DJP, including

155
AYER Vol. 27 No. 1 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/128

maximizing AI technology to oversee the confiscation of

evidence, from whom the evidence is taken, and to judge the
relevance of the evidence with the tax investigation case. So,
in-charge prosecutors can immediately tackle the risk of
neglecting the principles of equality before the law and checks
and balances during the investigation process.
3. Judge As part of the ICJS, and as the end of the Integrated Criminal
Court, judges have the right to know where the evidence of a
case is.
4. Programmer As a party who has the ability in the field of IT/Programmer
which is needed in installing application programs on a
computer.
5. Justice Seeking As the legal owner of the evidence in which the evidence has
Communities as been confiscated to be used as evidence, so that since the
Owners of beginning of the legal process carried out by the DJP PPNS
Evidence: Victims, until the case is Eintracht, the owner of the evidence can carry
Witnesses, out his own examination of the evidence whether it is
Suspects exchanged or not parties who are not the legal owners of the
evidence.
6. NGOs As an independent party that can advocate for Evidence
Owners who seek justice, and monitor whether there is any
misuse of evidence until an Eintracht legal decision is made.

C. CONCLUSION

Based on the doctrinal legal study applying stakeholder theory in addressing the challenge of
artificial intelligence (AI), two conclusions are generated. First, tax crime evidence and confiscation
administration and evidence data and monthly reports are manually done, unintegrated, and less
accurate, and evidence management at each ICJS stages is not transparent.

REFERENCES

156
AYER Vol. 27 No. 1 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/128

1. Ali, A., & Heryani, W. (2013). Menjelajahi Kajian Empiris terhadap Hukum . Jakarta: Kencana.
2. Badan Pembinaan Hukum Nasional. (2013). Lembaga Penyitaan dan Pengelolaan Barang Hasil
Kejahatan. Retrieved form
https://www.bphn.go.id/data/documents/laphir_lembaga_penyitaan_dan_pengelolaan_barang
_hasil_kejahatan.pdf.
3. Bolifaar, A. H. (2019). Rancangan Proyek Perubahan Pelatihan Kepemimpinan Tingkat IV
Angkatan II Tahun 2019: Terwujudnya Pengelolaan Barang Bukti & Barang Rampasan pada
Kejari Kendal Melalui Aplikasi Si Jempol Andal (Sistem Informasi Manajemen Pengelolaan
Barang Bukti dan Barang Rampasan Kejari Kendal) . Jakarta: Badan Pendidikan dan Pelatihan
Kejaksaan RI & Lembaga Administrasi Negara Republik Indonesia.
4. Bonnafous-Boucher, M., & Porcher, S. (2010). Towards a stakeholder society: Stakeholder
theory vs theory of civil society. European Management Review, 7(4), 205-216.
5. Circular of the Director General of Taxes Number SE-23/PJ/2015 dated March 25, 2015
concerning Technical Guidelines for Preliminary Evidence Examination in the Taxation Sector.
6. Dananjaya, N. S. (2014). Sistem Peradilan Pidana Terpadu (Integreted Criminal Justice System)
di Kaji dari Perspektif Sub Sistem Kepolisian. Vyavahara Duta, 9(1), 87-94.
7. Economou, N. (2017). A principled artificial intelligence could improve justice. ABA Journal-
Legal Rebels, 3.
8. Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University
Press.
9. Fuady, M. (2009). Teori Negara Hukum Modern (Rechstaat). Bandung: Refika Aditama.
10. Kumar, K., Zindani, D., & Davim, J. P. (2019). Industry 4.0: Developments towards the Fourth
Industrial Revolution. Springer.
11. Law of the Republic of Indonesia concerning General Provisions and Tax Procedures.
12. Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power.
13. Lim, T. W. (2019). Industrial Revolution 4.0, Tech Giants, and Digitized Societies . Palgrave
Macmillan.
14. Lipton, P. P. (1956). The Taxpayer's Rights: Investigation of Tax Fraud Cases. ABAJ, 42, 325.
15. Marzuki, P. M. (2014), Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Kencana.
16. McConville, M. (Ed.). (2017). Research methods for law. Edinburgh University Press.
17. Muladi & Arief, B. N. (2010). Teori-Teori dan Kebijakan Pidana. Bandung: Alumni.

157
AYER Vol. 27 No. 1 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/128

18. Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., & De Colle, S. (2010).
Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 403-445.
19. Phillips, R. A., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2007). What Stakeholder Theory is Not. Business
Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 119-139.
20. Pichai, S. (2018). AI at Google: our principles. Retrieved from
https://www.blog.google/technology/ai/ai-principles/.
21. Polonski, V. (2018). The hard problem of AI ethics – three guidelines for building morality into
machines. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-forum.org/users/80891-dr-vyacheslav-
polonski/posts/30743-the-hard-problem-of-ai-ethics-three-guidelines-for-building-morality-
into-machines.
22. Regulation of the Minister of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia Number 239 of 2014
concerning Procedures for Preliminary Evidence Audit of Taxation Crimes.
23. Reksodiputro, M. (2018). Politik Hukum dalam Bidang Penegakan Hukum . Retrieved from
http://mardjonoreksodiputro.blogspot.com/2018/10/politik-hukum-dalam-bidang-
penegakan.html.
24. Samekto, F. A. (2005). Studi Hukum Kritis Kritik terhadap Hukum Modern. Bandung: Citra
Aditya Bakti.
25. Siegel, L. J. (2011). Essentials of Criminal Justice. Wadsworth: Belmont.
26. Sinaga, H. D. P. (2017). The Criminal Liability of Corporate Taxpayer in the Perspective of Tax
Law Reform in Indonesia. Mimbar Hukum-Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada, 29(3),
542-557.
27. Sinaga, H. D. P. (2018). Loss (of Revenue) of State within Taxation Crimes in Indonesia. Mimbar
Hukum-Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada, 30(1), 153-167.
28. Soekanto, S., & Mamudji, S. (2007). Penelitian Hukum Normatif. Jakarta: Rajagrafindo Persada.
29. Soemitro, R. H. (1990). Metodologi Penelitian Hukum dan Jurimetri. Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia.
30. Stern, S. (2018). Introduction: Artificial intelligence, technology, and the law. University of
Toronto Law Journal, 68(supplement 1), 1-11.
31. Susanto, A. F. (2015), Penelitian Hukum: Transformatif-Partisipatoris. Malang: Setara Press.
32. Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2018). How AI can be a force for good. Science, 361(6404), 751-752.
33. The Fourth Amendment to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.
34. The Public Chohice. (2018). Universal Guidelines for Artificial Intelligence. Retrieved from
https://thepublicvoice.org/ai-universal-guidelines/.

158
AYER Vol. 27 No. 1 (2020)
http://ayerjournal.com/index.php/ayer/article/view/128

35. Webley, L. (2010). Qualitative approaches to empirical legal research. The Oxford handbook of
empirical legal research, 926-950.
36. Wignjosoebroto, S. (2002). Hukum Paradigma, Metode dan Dinamika Masalahnya. Jakarta:
Elsam & Huma.

159