Karya tulis ini membahas perihal penggunaan indirect evidence oleh KPPU dalam berbagai kasus kartel di Indonesia. Karena polah KPPU yang mendasarkan penggunaan bukti tersebut pada OECD Policy Brief, maka dilakukanlah analisis terhadap maksud sebenarnya dari brief tersebut dengan menjelaskan negara-negara yang dijadikan model dalam brief tersebut (Amerika dan Brazil), serta membandingkan polah KPPU dengan polah otoritas persaingan usaha di negara lain yang ?sama seperti Indonesia? bukan anggota maupun peserta OECD Roundtable terkait (Singapore). Kemudian, dibahas juga mengenai hukum acara yang berlaku untuk hukum persaingan usaha di Indonesia, serta pendapat para ahli mengenai penggunaan indirect evidence yang sepantasnya.
This thesis analyses the use of indirect evidence by KPPU in many of its effort to prove the conduct of cartel. Since KPPU has the tendency to base its use of indirect evidence on OECD Policy Brief, a thorough explanation on the legal reasoning and intention of the brief is provided by giving examples of some countries which were the models of the OECD Roundtable (United States and Brazil), as well as comparing KPPU?s conduct to other countries? anti-competition authorities (Singapore) which ?like Indonesia? is not a member of nor a party to such roundtable. The procedural law of competition law and the experts? opinions on the proper use of indirect evidence are also analyzed in relation to this matter.
