In proving TPPU, it is important to first prove Tipijak as an original crime which must be proven before further criminal prosecution is carried out. TPPU carried out by PT. Indopiranti Solusitama uses the Back to Back Loan mode, namely converting the illicit money from Tipijak into a new form in the form of disbursement of bank loans (Bank Panin) which then deposits the disbursement money in the suspect’s personal account (Bank BCA) which results in the origin of the money being unknown. recognized again. This is a screenshot of my ppt slide during the doctor of law promotion trial in front of the Board of Examiners at Borobudur University.
That TPPU cannot stand alone, there must be a predicate crime, namely a tax crime (Tipijak). In both the original crime and the subsequent crime, the mode used by tax evaders is Back to Back Loan, namely a debt transaction scheme that is guaranteed by liquid assets, for example applying for a working capital credit loan with a deposit guarantee of almost the same value.
This transaction scheme is part of a tax planning strategy, namely by charging all loan interest costs, but in reality the only burden is the spread or the difference between the loan interest rate and the savings interest rate. This transaction scheme is quite beautiful.
After analyzing it more deeply using the Mathematical Accounting Formula, Tax Accounting Equation (TAE) written by Joko Ismuhadi Soewarsono with the formula: Revenues = Expenses + Assets – Liabilities or usually abbreviated to R = E + A – L, it can be clearly seen that R is inversely proportional to L, thus further strengthening the allegation that in order to reduce tax payments, tax evaders reclassify the money received from sales which was originally a tax object into a new form with a new character as disbursement of debt which is not a tax object. Taxpayers who carry out this transaction scheme will usually have difficulty explaining why they need debt? This transaction scheme is usually carried out by disbursing the debt immediately, within minutes or even seconds the debt is returned, which is why the author calls it a transaction scheme where people are confused.

With a back to back loan transaction scheme that is carried out repeatedly, especially when combined with a foreign exchange transaction scheme, the tax evasion scheme is complete. For example, a Taxpayer sells IDR 100,000,000 US dollars (the strongest currency) to be converted into rupiah (functional currency) for the same amount, and vice versa, which is done repeatedly. Taxpayers will narrate that it is a hedging transaction.
Those who don’t understand might say yes, but for those who understand it will be refuted by the logic of deposit savings. For example, in January I deposited IDR 100,000,000 in rupiah, I did not extend this deposit. On the due date I disbursed the deposit money, the next day I returned to the bank to deposit rupiah in the same amount, namely IDR 100,000,000. So what was in the bank teller’s mind was that my money was only IDR 100,000,000 which was being twirled around, so the teller concluded that my money was only IDR 100,000,000, but behind that the teller didn’t know that I had disbursed yesterday’s deposit of IDR 100,000,000. I have kept it in the safe as cash accompanied by proof of origin as deposit disbursement. The next day I deposited my rupiah with the same amount that I withdrew yesterday. I did this repeatedly with the same amount, namely IDR 100,000,000. So no one would have thought that my money actually amounted to IDR 1.2 billion in one year, complete with proof of its origin as a disbursement of deposits that had been subject to final tax. With this mechanism, the money has become clean. The cash from cash sales can be used again. It was saved in the form of Promissory Note securities, for example, and I used the securities worth IDR 1.2 billion as collateral to open new credit debt for my business expansion. This will be done repeatedly by tax evaders.
So there has been a mode of tax evasion, a tax crime (Tipijak) as a predicate crime using a back to back loan transaction scheme followed by a follow-up crime, namely opening an investment loan in the context of business expansion with a back to back loan scheme as well. (jis).

Jakarta, 18 February 2024

Joko Ismuhadi Soewarsono*)