JAKARTA: Bank Mandiri’s freezing of a protest coordinator’s account has drawn strong criticism from civil society groups, which have warned the move restricts civic freedoms.
The account belongs to Supriyono, coordinator of the United Pati People’s Alliance (AMPB), a group which has organised residents from Pati, Central Java, to protest outside the House of Representatives in Jakarta on Aug. 27, where protesters are expected to demand the seizure of assets belonging to corruption convicts and the death penalty for corruption convicts.
The bank account contains around Rp80.9 million (US$4,900) in personal funds and public donations intended to cover food, transportation and accommodation for protesters.
Mandiri, the publicly listed state-run bank, has since apologised and attributed the freeze to a request from law enforcement authorities, but refrained from identifying the agency involved or providing details of the case or the legal basis for the request.
“The blocking was taken at the request of law enforcement authorities and was conducted in accordance with prevailing procedures and regulations,” Mandiri said, adding that it remains committed to upholding good governance principles.
But a coalition of rights groups, including the Center of Economic and Law Studies (Celios), the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI) and Amnesty International Indonesia, argued the freeze could violate Article 140 of the Criminal Law Procedures Code, which requires court authorisation for an account to be frozen as a coercive measure.
In urgent circumstances, investigators can freeze an account before obtaining approval but must seek authorisation from the head of a district court within 48 hours, they said.
The coalition further argued that the timing of the freeze raised concerns that banking powers were being used to restrict citizens’ right to protest.
“We see a serious danger when citizens’ accounts are frozen while they are exercising their right to voice criticism. Restricting access to money for food, transportation and other needs of protesters effectively cripples freedom of expression through economic pressure.”
It urged Mandiri to restore access to the account if there was no valid legal basis or court authorisation and called on the Financial Services Authority (OJK) to investigate the matter.
Another coalition of civil groups, Responsibank, which has long been campaigning for socially and environmentally responsible banking business, warned that without transparency and accountability mechanisms behind the freeze, it could create “a chilling effect” on public critics or people who support civil rights movements.
“It’s more about a democratic issue rather than a consumer protection issue if people were afraid of making donations, joining organisations or voicing criticism because their bank accounts could be blocked at any time,” Responsibank said on Tuesday.
Jakarta Police spokesperson Sr. Comr. Budi Hermanto confirmed that the special crimes investigation directorate (Ditreskrimsus) made the request, though he said it was intended to suspend the transaction for up to around five business days for investigation purposes – and not indefinitely.
“We clarify that what the investigator requested was a suspension of transaction, which is different from freezing an account,” Budi told The Jakarta Post on Monday.
He said the police request was based on the 2023 Financial Sector Development and Strengthening (P2SK) Law, which stipulates that fundraising must be carried out under a licensed business entity, rather than by an individual like Supriyono.
Budi also cited the 2010 anti-money laundering law as the reason behind the request, but did not elaborate further, while the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Center (PPATK), which is in charge of monitoring suspicious financial transactions, has denied involvement in the account freezing.
The police said the account would be reactivated if no criminal offence was found after the five-day deadline of the investigation, and they have coordinated with the OJK before starting the probe.
OJK chief executive for banking supervision Dian Ediana Rae told the Post on Tuesday that while the bank had so far complied with existing regulations, OJK would continue to look into the freeze and “is currently coordinating with the bank’s management”.
He said postponement of transactions, “when done in accordance with prevailing regulations, is in fact a form of protection to that trust, not a threat”.
Banking experts, meanwhile, argued that while banks are obliged to follow orders from law enforcement authorities to freeze or inspect accounts, lack of transparency could hurt public trust.
“As long as it remains unclear who is responsible and on what grounds the account was blocked, this could lead to an erosion of trust in the banking sector. What happened at Bank Mandiri could happen at other banks,” analyst Doddy Ariefianto said.
Another analyst, M. Amin Nurdin, said the public should be provided with transparent information regarding such measures.
“The legitimacy of an account freeze is not only determined by the request, but also by the authority of the institution making the request, the legal basis, procedures, duration and protection of customers’ right,” he said. - Jakarta Post/ANN
