KPPU Hearing on Fintech Lending Continues with Expert Testimony

Business Law Expert Provides Crucial Insights

The ongoing KPPU hearing regarding alleged collusion on interest rates among fintech lending association (AFPI) members has heard significant testimony from business law expert Nindyo Pramono. The expert emphasized that compliance with association guidelines shouldn't be automatically considered as price-fixing agreements between members. Pramono explained that association products like Codes of Conduct are unilateral decisions made by the association rather than mutual agreements between multiple parties.

Legal Distinction Between Association Rules and Horizontal Agreements

The expert highlighted a crucial legal distinction: association rules don't constitute horizontal agreements between business actors as they lack reciprocal interaction. Pramono stressed that for an agreement to exist, there must be mutual interaction between business entities, which isn't present in the context of association guidelines. He stated, "Products of associations (like Codes of Conduct) aren't agreements because they lack reciprocal interaction between business actors."

Implications for KPPU Investigation

This testimony is particularly significant as the KPPU is investigating allegations that AFPI's Code of Conduct may have facilitated collective rate-setting among its members. The expert's statement potentially weakens the initial assumption that association guidelines served as a platform for members to collectively determine interest rates. The hearing is ongoing as KPPU continues to examine the internal regulatory structure of AFPI and the implementation of its Code of Conduct at the member level.

Separation of Roles Between Association Management and Business Actors

Pramono also emphasized the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between the roles of association management and individual business actors in legal analysis. He warned against conflating the two entities, stating that they should be treated separately in KPPU's legal assessment. This clarification is crucial for understanding the nature of the alleged collusion and whether AFPI's guidelines truly constitute an anti-competitive practice.