Strengthening integrity in Indonesia’s capital markets: what brokerage and securities firms should be doing now

Indonesia’s capital markets are entering an important phase of structural reform. Over the past months, the regulatory direction from OJK, IDX, and KSEI has become increasingly clear: the market is expected to become more transparent, more credible, and more resilient, with a stronger emphasis on ownership visibility, free-float quality, investor classification, reporting discipline, and enforcement.

This shift is not happening in a vacuum. It comes at a time when concerns around market integrity, the real quality of public float, shareholder affiliations, account transparency, and compliance discipline have become more prominent. 

In February 2026, OJK, IDX, and KSEI jointly announced an accelerated capital-market integrity reform agenda, including proposals to increase the minimum free-float threshold from 7.5 percent to 15 percent, disclose shareholders holding more than one percent in listed issuers, and expand investor classification granularity. As part of that effort, KSEI also launched a reclassification exercise covering over 35,000 SID records, with data collection targeted for March 2026.

These developments point to a clear direction: regulators are no longer satisfied with formal transparency. They are increasingly focused on whether market structures reflect underlying reality.

For brokerage houses and securities firms, this is a significant signal that compliance can no longer be approached only as a matter of documentation and periodic reporting. 

Firms are increasingly expected to understand the true nature of the accounts they handle, the beneficial owners behind clients and structures, the relationships between shareholders and trading parties, as well as the integrity risks that may arise from weak onboarding, incomplete data, poor monitoring, or internal misconduct. OJK’s KYC framework in the capital markets sector already requires providers to broadly identify beneficial owners, including individuals who ultimately benefit from, control, or transact through securities accounts or non-individual customers.

Furthermore, there is evidence showing  that regulators are prepared to act. In March 2025, OJK revoked the broker-dealer and underwriter business licenses of two securities companies for violations relating to securities-company licensing and reporting obligations. OJK also reported broader capital market sanctions in 2025, including fines, written warnings, and license revocations.

In the February 2026 joint reform release, OJK stated that from 2022 through January 2026, it had imposed administrative sanctions totaling over Rp500 billion on 3,418 parties, including over Rp200 billion in fines on 151 parties for stock-trading manipulation, and that of 42 suspected capital-market crime cases under examination, 32 of them were linked to alleged manipulation schemes such as pump-and-dump, wash sales, and prearranged trades.

This matters because brokerage and securities firms occupy a central position in the market ecosystem. They are not only intermediaries executing transactions, but also gatekeepers for onboarding, account integrity, client due diligence, transaction patterns, internal supervision, and reporting quality. These institutions are often the first place where problems emerge or the last place where they could have been detected before they exacerbate.

In other words, brokerage firms are no longer judged solely on whether processes are followed, but on how far they truly understand the existing risks.

What brokerage and securities firms should be doing now

The first priority is to strengthen client and ownership transparency. Firms should revisit whether they truly understand who stands behind their higher-risk individual and corporate clients, whether beneficial ownership data is reliable, whether client classifications are accurate, and whether their documentation sufficiently identifies nominee arrangements, hidden controllers or affiliated parties. This is particularly important as the market moves toward more granular investor categorisation and greater emphasis on the actual quality of shareholder dispersion.

The second priority is data integrity. The reclassification of SID records highlights a wider issue: account, investor, and shareholder data must be accurate, consistent and usable. Weak or outdated static data creates operational risk, impairs surveillance, affects reporting quality, and can undermine the reliability of ownership analysis. Brokerage and securities firms should therefore review the quality of their onboarding files, client master data, shareholder information, as well as supporting records, and remediate existing gaps before they become regulatory or reputational problems.

The third priority is anti-fraud readiness. OJK’s anti-fraud framework is intended to guide financial services institutions through prevention, detection, investigation and reporting. That means firms should not only have a policy on paper, but a practical operating model: clear escalation channels, red-flag identification, whistleblowing intake, management oversight, case documentation, and investigation readiness. A weak anti-fraud framework can leave firms exposed not only to external abuse, but also to employee misconduct, collusion, document manipulation, conflicts of interest, or failures in supervisory control.

The fourth priority is enhanced detection of suspicious affiliations and abnormal activity. One of the core integrity issues in any capital market is the difference between accounts that are formally separate and investors that are genuinely independent. Firms should be capable of identifying potential undisclosed links between clients, shareholders, directors, employees, introducers, and related accounts. They should also be able to assess whether apparently dispersed holdings may in reality be coordinated, controlled or connected. This is relevant not only for market conduct and surveillance, but also for the credibility of free float and shareholder transparency.

The fifth priority is investigation capability. When concerns arise, firms need a defensible response. Treating allegations, suspicious patterns or internal concerns informally is no longer sufficient. Cases involving employee misconduct, suspicious client structures, possible account linkages, irregular trading patterns, document falsification, misuse of authority, or problematic third parties must be handled in a structured, discreet and evidence-based manner. This becomes even more important in an environment where OJK continues to emphasise enforcement, remediation and governance. 

The ability to conduct investigations effectively is no longer a reactive function. It is a core component of maintaining market credibility.

A practical agenda for firms

In practical terms, brokerage and securities firms in Indonesia should consider a review focused on five areas:

1. Client and beneficial ownership transparency

Reassess KYC, beneficial ownership identification, high-risk client review, and related-party visibility.

2. Data and account integrity

Review SID-related records, account-opening documentation, client master data, and classification accuracy.

3. Anti-fraud and escalation readiness

Test whether fraud concerns, whistleblowing allegations, and suspicious conduct can be escalated and investigated effectively.

4. Affiliation and control risk

Examine whether shareholder dispersion, account independence, and free-float claims are supported by accurate facts.

5. Investigation preparedness

Ensure the firm has a credible process to respond to internal misconduct, client-related concerns, and external allegations.

Where Integrity Indonesia can play a role

As a firm specialised in prevention, detection and investigation, Integrity Indonesia can support brokerage and securities companies in strengthening their integrity framework in a practical and independent way. This may include reviewing KYC and beneficial ownership controls, assisting with high-risk client and affiliation assessments, supporting static-data and file remediation exercises, conducting due diligence on third parties and key personnel, as well as helping firms identify red flags linked to concealed relationships, suspicious conduct or internal misconduct. In addition, a robust whistleblowing program is a must. 

If concerns have already been raised, Integrity Indonesia can also assist with discreet fact-finding and investigations involving employees, clients, beneficial owners, introducers, vendors, or other counterparties. The objective is not simply to identify issues after the event, but to help firms build a stronger capacity to prevent misconduct, detect irregularities earlier, and respond in a structured and accountable manner.

In an environment where visibility is becoming a regulatory expectation, independent insight can provide firms with a clearer, more defensible understanding of the risks they carry.

As Indonesia’s capital markets move toward greater transparency, stronger enforcement, and more robust integrity standards, brokerage and securities firms will be expected to do more than maintain formal compliance. They will need to demonstrate their understanding of the people, structures, relationships, and risks behind the accounts they manage. In that environment, independent prevention, detection and investigation support is likely to become a practical necessity rather thana luxury.