{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.032777115613825986, 'fraction_numerical': 0.015494636471990465, 'mean_word_length': 5.218518518518518, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Legal Case on Bid Rigging of Electronic Identity Card Procurement in Indonesia

. The prohibition of bid rigging is regulated in the Competition Law, which is in accordance with Article 22 of Law No. 5 Year 1999 of Indonesia concerning the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition. Whereas the elements of bid rigging include: (1) elements of business actors; (2) elements ofconspiring; (3) elements of other parties; (4) elements of regulating and or determining the winner of the tender; (5) elements of unfair business competition. Because it is stated as a rule of reason behavior, the legal case of bid rigging requires legal proof before it is declared that a violation has occurred. The conspiracy to procure electronic identity card (e-IDCard), which is the object of this research, occurred at the Ministry of Home Affairs of Indonesia, in 2011-2012 Fiscal Year. The type of research is normative and descriptive, with qualitative analysis using secondary data and drawing conclusions deductively. HowBusiness Competition Supervisory Commission (BCSC) of The Republic Indonesia proves that elements of bid rigging are fulfilled is the main problem of this research. That according to the BCSC's decision No. 03/KPPU-L/2012 horizontal and vertical conspiracy occurred, namely horizontally between Reported Party II (PNRI Consortium) and Reported Party III (Astragraphia Consortium), vertically occurred between Reported Party I (Tender Committee) and Reported Party II (PNRI Consortium), with sanctions in the form of money fine. However, the results of this study stated that the BCSC's decision was not correct legally or wrong decision.