logo
Jakarta's Bargain Blahniks, Birkins and Bling Spark US Trade Backlash

Jakarta's Bargain Blahniks, Birkins and Bling Spark US Trade Backlash

Straits Times02-05-2025

'Hermes Birkin' handbags cost from just 600,000 rupiah for the PVC version, while cow leather replicas went for up to 2.5 million rupiah. ST PHOTO: ARLINA ARSHAD
– A stroll through ITC Mangga Dua, one of Jakarta's largest wholesale markets, felt less like a shopping trip and more like a masterclass in counterfeit couture.
Rows of 'Manolo Blahnik' and 'Jimmy Choo' heels glinted behind glass counters. Above them, gleaming 'Rolex' watches sat beside belts stamped with the 'Ferragamo' logo. Floor-to-ceiling shelves brimmed with designer handbags – inspired by brand names such as Louis Vuitton, Hermes, Dior and Balenciaga. Standing in stark contrast, the scruffy walls, cracked tiles and creaky escalators were a clear reminder that this was no luxury mall.
A recent check by The Straits Times found a ' Ferragamo ' belt selling for 1.5 million rupiah (S$118), a 'Cartier' watch for 6.5 million, and a pair of faux Chanel stud earrings priced the same as the belt.
' Hermes Birkin ' handbags cost from just 600,000 rupiah for the PVC version, while cow leather replicas went for up to 2.5 million rupiah . Birkin bag prices vary significantly, from about US$10,000 (S$13,000) for an entry-level model to as much as US$2 million for exotic leathers and unusual colours, with a wait time of as long as six years as the bags are handmade and must be ordered in advance.
Mangga Dua – which means two mangoes, a nod to the area's once-abundant mango trees – is a sprawling cluster of shopping centres, including ITC Mangga Dua, in North Jakarta. It has openly sold fake luxury goods for decades.
Some shops labelled the merchandise as 'original branded imports', but most made little attempt to disguise the truth. From low-grade knock-offs to so-called 'super' fakes that closely resembled genuine items, everything was on offer – at a fraction of the price of the real deal.
At one stall, a vendor thrust two 'Goyard' totes into this reporter's hands. 'This one is KW1 – first grade. The canvas is softer and the straps are made of leather, like the real one, 2.5 million rupiah. The other, KW2, is 750,000 rupiah,' she explained, pointing to a version that felt stiffer and less pliant .
KW, short for kwalitas or quality, refers to imitation goods that are graded by tiers based on how closely they resemble the originals.
'We shipped one bag to Singapore just last week. No problem with customs. Just buy – nobody can tell it's fake,' she said.
Mangga Dua, Jakarta's famous shopping area, wasnamed a global hotspot for fake goods in the US 2024 Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy, released in January.
ST PHOTO: ARLINA ARSHAD
Other sellers offered tips on sourcing. South Korean-made 'Lady Dior' bags fetched several million rupiah, while cheaper Chinese-made versions sold for a third of the price.
According to the Global Organised Crime Index website, Indonesia has served as both a transit hub and a local market for fake goods , owing to its proximity to China and strong domestic demand. The rise of e-commerce has worsened the issue, with fake listings often slow to be taken down. A joint report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the European Union Intellectual Property Office ranked Indonesia among the world's top sources of counterfeit handbags, clothing, cosmetics, footwear, toys and jewellery between 2017 and 2019.
While the counterfeit trade has long flourished, it recently came under renewed international scrutiny. In its 2024 Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy, released on Jan 8, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) named Mangga Dua among 71 global markets – 38 online and 33 physical – that facilitated large-scale trade in fake goods.
Other South-east Asian markets flagged were Phnom Penh's Central Market, Kuala Lumpur's Petaling Street, Manila's Greenhills, Bangkok's MBK Centre, and Ho Chi Minh City's Saigon Square. While online platforms were a growing concern, the USTR said physical markets remained key conduits, particularly in places with weak enforcement.
Mangga Dua, it noted, was notorious for counterfeit handbags, toys, clothing and leather goods, but saw 'little to no enforcement'. Warning letters had proved ineffective, and stakeholders continued to raise concerns about the lack of criminal prosecutions.
Rows of 'Manolo Blahnik' and 'Jimmy Choo' heels glint behind glass counters.
ST PHOTO: ARLINA ARSHAD
The report came as Washington escalated trade pressure, recently imposing a 32 per cent tariff on Indonesian exports. On April 29, the USTR placed Indonesia on its Priority Watch List for 'serious concerns over weak intellectual property protection or enforcement', noting that counterfeit production had shifted locally and sales were increasingly moving online.
Trade Minister Budi Santoso pledged to investigate the USTR's claims. Mr Moga Simatupang, director of consumer protection at the Trade Ministry, reportedly said enforcement efforts were often hampered by the requirement for formal complaints from trademark holders – many of whom are based overseas.
Still, Coordinating Minister for Economic Affairs Airlangga Hartarto said on April 23 that trademark violations at Mangga Dua had not been raised during his recent negotiations in Washington DC.
Despite the illegality of selling counterfeit goods, demand for affordable luxury, coupled with lax regulation and a public often unaware or indifferent to the legal risks, has allowed the trade to endure.
Vendors at Mangga Dua appeared unfazed. Most, however, declined to give their names.
'Crackdowns do happen, but they don't last. This time, it's because of (US President) Donald Trump,' said one shopkeeper. 'If the US is so unhappy, they should go after China – they make the goods, we just sell them.'
'We don't pretend our goods are real,' said another vendor who gave her name as Ita. 'People know they're fakes – the difference is like the sky and the earth. Who can afford the real ones? They cost too much.'
Sellers say their customers included tourists from Europe, the Middle East and South-east Asia, some of whom bought in bulk or asked for items to be shipped overseas.
German tourist Jen Meier, 53, said she was curious to visit Mangga Dua after watching YouTube videos by other travellers and following recent debates on TikTok, where Chinese manufacturers claimed many goods sold abroad were of similar quality to those made in China.
'I didn't come with the intention to shop, but I ended up buying a small purse as a souvenir. I want to bring one back to show my friends,' she told The Straits Times.
Indonesian marketing executive Sari Fitri, 35, who bought a 'Prada' handbag, said that dressing well was important in her line of work, but her salary made it impossible to afford genuine designer goods.
'I'm a bargain hunter. It's easy to find fakes here and there's no penalty for buying them,' she told ST. 'My friends also buy counterfeit items – some of the designs are really cool. It's a guilty pleasure, finding something that looks premium for cheap.'
Arlina Arshad is The Straits Times' Indonesia bureau chief. She is a Singaporean who has been living and working in Indonesia as a journalist for more than 15 years.
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Court partially allows Goh Jin Hian's appeal, finds he did not breach duty by not probing IPP's red flags
Court partially allows Goh Jin Hian's appeal, finds he did not breach duty by not probing IPP's red flags

Business Times

timean hour ago

  • Business Times

Court partially allows Goh Jin Hian's appeal, finds he did not breach duty by not probing IPP's red flags

[SINGAPORE] The Appellate Division of the High Court has partially allowed an appeal by Goh Jin Hian against having to pay damages for breaching his duty of care as a then-director of the insolvent marine fuel supplier, Inter-Pacific Petroleum (IPP). The ruling on Thursday (Jun 5) said that Goh had breached his duty of care as a result of not being aware of IPP's cargo trading business – not because he had failed to open a probe into red flags surrounding the company. The justices presiding were Tay Yong Kwang, Woo Bih Li and Kannan Ramesh. Goh was also found not to have breached his duty to act in the best interests of IPP's creditors regarding drawdowns on bank facilities in relation to fraudulent cargo trades. This follows his being found liable in February 2024 for breaching of his director's duties, statutory duties and the losses suffered by the firm, which came to US$146 million plus interest. The liquidators of IPP had sued Dr Goh, the son of former prime minister Goh Chok Tong, to recover US$156 million in losses, accusing him of 'sleepwalking through his time as a director' and failing to discover and stop the drawdowns in trade financing between June 2019 and July 2019, said to have been funding non-existent or sham transactions. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up In his grounds of decision released last July, High Court Justice Aedit Abdullah said Dr Goh had not taken 'reasonable steps', such as by making the necessary inquiries, when red flags surrounding the company arose. Goh was also unaware of the existence of IPP's cargo trading business, despite being a director of the company, and therefore did not know this business was a fraudulent scheme perpetrated by IPP, said the justice. Following the appeal, the judgement has been set aside, and Dr Goh no longer has to pay damages to IPP. While the Appellate Division agreed with the previous judgement that Goh had breached his duty of care by being unaware of IPP's cargo trading business, it found that the three red flags raised in the previous judgement were not 'red flags that would have put Dr Goh on a train of inquiry leading to the fraud in the cargo trading business being uncovered'. One such red flag was an audit confirmation request relating to amounts of receivables due to IPP from customer Mercuria Energy Trading, which Goh signed and was sent to Mercuria on Feb 7, 2018. The sum due was US$132 million. While Justice Aedit said Goh should have made inquiries upon receiving the audit confirmation request, the Appellate Division said the fact that this sum was requested by Mercuria was 'not, in and of itself, enough to put him on inquiry'. This was because Mercuria was a big company and that the size of the receivable could have been explained by IPP's sizeable trading volume, amounting to about US$1 billion, with it. Two other issues that IPP's liquidators had called red flags – the suspension of IPP's bunker craft operator licence in June 2019 and three confirmations of indebtedness signed by Dr Goh in July 2019 – were also found not to be red flags by the Court of Appeal. In the case of the suspension, 'even if Dr Goh had made the inquiries... it is unclear if he would have uncovered fraud in the cargo trading business, even if he had learned that IPP was carrying on such business'. The judges were not persuaded that the suspension of the licence was a red flag. As for the confirmation of indebtedness, there was no assertion in the confirmations that the debts were for the cargo trading business, and they were thus not considered red flags. The Appellate Division therefore departed from Justice Aedit's finding that Dr Goh breached the care duty regarding the red flags. It also disagreed with Justice Aedit that Dr Goh did not breach his duty to act in the best interests of the respondent's creditors on the drawdowns for fraudulent cargo trades made on IPP's bank facilities. It found that IPP bears the legal burden of proving that the fraud would have been detected, and that the resulting loss would have been averted had Dr Goh known that IPP was undertaking the cargo trading business, but failed to discharge this burden. Dr Goh was represented by TSMP Law Corporation, led by joint managing partner Thio Shen Yi; IPP's liquidators were represented by LVM Law Chambers, led by managing director Lok Vi Ming. After the appeal, Thio said the decision has practical implications for all directors, as the Court of Appeal has clarified that it 'cannot be part of a director's duty of supervision and oversight to pick up fraud unless there are tell-tale warning signs'. 'Directors owe fiduciary obligations and the duty of care to the company, but the Appeals Court has crucially recognised the practical and commercial limits to their ability to scrutinise for and detect fraud, especially deep-seated fraud,' he added.

American group distributing aid in Gaza delays reopening sites, World News
American group distributing aid in Gaza delays reopening sites, World News

AsiaOne

timean hour ago

  • AsiaOne

American group distributing aid in Gaza delays reopening sites, World News

CAIRO/JERUSALEM — A controversial private company distributing aid in Gaza, backed by the US and Israel, had yet to reopen its distribution sites in the enclave by mid-morning on Thursday (June 5), a day after shutting them following a series of deadly shootings close to its operations. The US-based Gaza Humanitarian Foundation had said on Wednesday that its sites would not reopen at their usual time due to maintenance and repair work. It did not say when the locations would reopen. A Palestinian father of four in Gaza's Khan Younis, who asked not to be identified over safety concerns, told Reuters the GHF site in nearby Rafah had not reopened by mid morning. GHF did not immediately respond to a request for comment. [[nid:718722]]

Appeals Court partially allows Goh Jin Hian's appeal, finds he did not breach duty by not probing IPP's red flags
Appeals Court partially allows Goh Jin Hian's appeal, finds he did not breach duty by not probing IPP's red flags

Business Times

timean hour ago

  • Business Times

Appeals Court partially allows Goh Jin Hian's appeal, finds he did not breach duty by not probing IPP's red flags

[SINGAPORE] The Court of Appeal has partially allowed an appeal by Goh Jin Hian against having to pay damages for breaching his duty of care as a then-director of the insolvent marine fuel supplier, Inter-Pacific Petroleum (IPP). The court ruled on Thursday (Jun 5) that Goh had breached his duty of care as a result of not being aware of IPP's cargo trading business – not because he had failed to open a probe into red flags surrounding the company. The justices presiding were Tay Yong Kwang, Woo Bih Li and Kannan Ramesh. Goh was also found not to have breached his duty to act in the best interests of IPP's creditors regarding drawdowns on bank facilities in relation to fraudulent cargo trades. This follows his being found liable in February 2024 for breaching of his director's duties, statutory duties and the losses suffered by the firm, which came to US$146 million plus interest. The liquidators of IPP had sued Dr Goh, the son of former prime minister Goh Chok Tong, to recover US$156 million in losses, accusing him of 'sleepwalking through his time as a director' and failing to discover and stop the drawdowns in trade financing between June 2019 and July 2019, said to have been funding non-existent or sham transactions. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up In his grounds of decision released last July, High Court Justice Aedit Abdullah said Dr Goh had not taken 'reasonable steps', such as by making the necessary inquiries, when red flags surrounding the company arose. Goh was also unaware of the existence of IPP's cargo trading business, despite being a director of the company, and therefore did not know this business was a fraudulent scheme perpetrated by IPP, said the justice. Following the appeal, the judgement has been set aside, and Dr Goh no longer has to pay damages to IPP. While the Court of Appeal agreed with the previous judgement that Goh had breached his duty of care by being unaware of IPP's cargo trading business, it found that the three red flags raised in the previous judgement were not 'red flags that would have put Dr Goh on a train of inquiry leading to the fraud in the cargo trading business being uncovered'. One such red flag was an audit confirmation request relating to amounts of receivables due to IPP from customer Mercuria Energy Trading, which Goh signed and was sent to Mercuria on Feb 7, 2018. The sum due was US$132 million. While Justice Aedit said Goh should have made inquiries upon receiving the audit confirmation request, the Court of Appeal said the fact that this sum was requested by Mercuria was 'not, in and of itself, enough to put him on inquiry'. This was because Mercuria was a big company and that the size of the receivable could have been explained by IPP's sizeable trading volume, amounting to about US$1 billion, with it. Two other issues that IPP's liquidators had called red flags – the suspension of IPP's bunker craft operator licence in June 2019 and three confirmations of indebtedness signed by Dr Goh in July 2019 – were also found not to be red flags by the Court of Appeal. In the case of the suspension, 'even if Dr Goh had made the inquiries... it is unclear if he would have uncovered fraud in the cargo trading business, even if he had learned that IPP was carrying on such business'. The judges were not persuaded that the suspension of the licence was a red flag. As for the confirmation of indebtedness, there was no assertion in the confirmations that the debts were for the cargo trading business, and they were thus not considered red flags. The Court of Appeal therefore departed from Justice Aedit's finding that Dr Goh breached the care duty regarding the red flags. The Court of Appeal also disagreed with Justice Aedit that Dr Goh did not breach his duty to act in the best interests of the respondent's creditors on the drawdowns for fraudulent cargo trades made on IPP's bank facilities. It found that IPP bears the legal burden of proving that the fraud would have been detected, and that the resulting loss would have been averted had Dr Goh known that IPP was undertaking the cargo trading business, but failed to discharge this burden. Dr Goh was represented by TSMP Law Corporation, led by joint managing partner Thio Shen Yi; IPP's liquidators were represented by LVM Law Chambers, led by managing director Lok Vi Ming. After the appeal, Thio said the decision has practical implications for all directors, as the Court of Appeal has clarified that it 'cannot be part of a director's duty of supervision and oversight to pick up fraud unless there are tell-tale warning signs'. 'Directors owe fiduciary obligations and the duty of care to the company, but the Appeals Court has crucially recognised the practical and commercial limits to their ability to scrutinise for and detect fraud, especially deep-seated fraud,' he added.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store