<![CDATA[This type of research can be classified into normative research which examines the legal synchronization of the existence of KPPU Regulations before Law Number 5 of 1999 and Law Number 9 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code in the system of proof of business competition procedural law, especially the handling of cartel cases. This study uses secondary data which is divided into primary legal materials, secondary legal materials and tertiary legal materials.Based on the results of the research, it can be concluded that the first is the use of circumtatial evidence by the KPPU in dealing with cartel cases which have been rejected by many, such as the cases of the Cooking Oil Cartel, Amplodiphine Besytale Drug, and the Fuel Surcharge Cartel on the grounds that circumtatial evidence is not evidence contained in Article 42 and different from the guiding evidence contained in article 188 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code which means the Assembly disregards the position of the KPPU, on the other hand there are also cartel cases that use circumtatial evidence such as the Cartel for Four-wheeled Vehicles, Cartel Motor Matic and most recently the Cartel case Airline Tickets therefore circumtatial evidence has legal uncertainties in its application and there is a glimmer of hope that indirect evidence can be accepted as valid and independent evidence. Second, indirect evidence also has an effect on preventive action and therefore circumtatial evidence must be able to strengthen its position as independent evidence considering that in the current regulations there are many deficiencies such as the KPPU's limited authority, limited evidence, and not yet adhering to leniency system as a form of best practice in handling cartel cases. The author's suggestion is that the first is that KPPU Regulations must be used as material for the panel's consideration in deciding business competition cases. The two business competition procedural laws must be updated which strengthen the position of circumtatial evidence as valid and independent evidence.]]>
