Publication Search

Corruption is an extraordinary crime that not only causes massive state financial losses but also impedes national development. Efforts to eradicate corruption are insufficient if limited to the imprisonment of perpetrators; they must be accompanied by state asset recovery. The prosecutor, as the dominus litis in the criminal justice sistem, plays a central role in the process of seizing assets derived from corruption. This research aims to analyze the authority of prosecutors to seize assets in corruption cases, identify the obstacles encountered, and formulate solutions to optimize the exercise of this authority. The research method employed is normative juridical, utilizing a statutory approach and a case approach. The findings indicate that prosecutors have a strong legal basis for asset seizure, as stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), the Anti-Corruption Law, and other relevant regulations. However, in practice, prosecutors face various obstacles, both juridical, such as legal loopholes in the evidentiary process, and non-juridical, such as the complex modus operandi of perpetrators in concealing assets, slow inter-agency coordination, and challenges in tracing assets located abroad. Therefore, it is imperative to strengthen the regulatory framework through the enactment of the Asset Forfeiture Bill, enhance the capacity and integrity of prosecutors, and bolster international cooperation to maximize the recovery of state losses.

Corruption is an extraordinary crime that damages the foundation of the state. In the context of Government Procurement of Goods/Services (PBJP), corrupt behavior still occurs even though it has been regulated through Presidential Regulation Number 12 of 2021 as an amendment to Presidential Regulation Number 16 of 2018. The implementation of the PBJP policy is considered to be not able to effectively suppress the potential for corruption, so other variables are needed that affect the effectiveness of the policy. This study aims to analyze the direct and indirect influence of the leadership style and quality of human resources (HR) of the state civil apparatus on the potential for corruption through the implementation of PBJP policies. The research method used is quantitative with the Partial Least Squares - Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) approach, which aims to test the relationship between latent variables and confirm the influence of leadership style and quality of human resources on potential corruption through the effectiveness of PBJP implementation. The research population includes elements of PBJP policy implementation within the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), including PPK, procurement officials, UKPBJ working groups, and goods/service providers. The sample was determined by purposive random sampling, consisting of internal and external implementers of PBJP at the KPK with a budget value of more than IDR 1 billion in the 2024 fiscal year. The results of the study show that leadership style has a positive effect on the implementation of PBJP and directly reduces the potential for corruption. The quality of ASN human resources has a positive effect on the implementation of PBJP, but it has a double effect on the potential for corruption. The mediation test showed that the implementation of PBJP mediated part of the influence of leadership style and human resource quality on potential corruption, with the direction of influence changing from positive to negative. These findings confirm the importance of the effectiveness of the implementation of PBJP policies in suppressing the potential for corruption within the KPK.

White-collar crime has evolved to a transnational scale, transcending national boundaries. The crimes are increasingly sophisticated and well-organized, making them difficult to detect and eradicate effectively. Criminals continually seek to secure their proceeds through various means, including complex schemes of money laundering involving international financial networks. To enforce the law on money laundering, proof of the occurrence of money laundering is necessary. Therefore, prior to carrying out the investigation, several key elements must be understood, including the basic concepts of money laundering, the methods of money laundering, and indirect methods of evidence. The crime of money laundering is based on Law No. 15 of 2002 and has been carried out in accordance with the applicable provisions, namely Law No. 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), and the Procedural Law contained in Law No. 15 of 2002 concerning the Crime of Money Laundering as amended by Law No. 25 of 2003 concerning Amendments to Law No. 15 of 2002 concerning the Crime of Money Laundering. Obstacles that arise in investigating money laundering crimes can be categorized into two categories: legal and non-legal. Legal obstacles include provisions on bank secrecy, investigators' obligations to protect reporters and witnesses, investigators' incomplete perceptions of money laundering, and incomplete information from the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Center (PPATK). Non-legal obstacles include reporters not necessarily being victims, limited human resource capacity of investigators, lack of adequate facilities, minimal public awareness, insufficient institutional coordination, and technological gaps that hinder optimal enforcement efforts.

In order to determine who has the right to take business assets implicated in money laundering offenses, this paper examines the legal loophole in Law Number 8 of 2010 about the Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering offenses (UU TPPU). The efficacy of law enforcement may be weakened and the process of recovering assets from crimes may be hampered by the ambiguous authority and lack of regulatory synchronization. Combining a statutory and conceptual approach with a normative legal technique, this study examines the implications of legal uncertainty on the mechanism of asset confiscation in eradicating TPPU. This research result indicates that the lack of authority in implementing asset forfeiture consequences results in inconsistent legal procedures, overlapping institutional roles, and slows down the recovery of state assets. Therefore, legal reform is needed through amendments to Article 9 of the TPPU Law and alignment with the Criminal Code (KUHP) and other related regulations so that the mechanism of asset confiscation is more precise, more effective, and coordinated. In addition, synergy between investigators, prosecutors, The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), and the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Center (PPATK) are essential for improving the efficiency of state asset recovery. Regulations and an integrated system make it possible to swiftly and publicly seize assets resulting from criminal activity, which deters criminals, enhances public trust in law enforcement, and ensures that assets obtained illegally can be returned for the benefit of the state and society, while reinforcing the integrity of the justice system.

Corruption is a severe issue that threatens good government and impedes national growth. Various legislative tools, including Law Number 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption, have been used in Indonesia to combat corruption, as well as the establishment of special institutions such as the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). Although regulations and institutions for eradicating corruption are available, the implementation of the law in the field still faces various obstacles, including weak coordination between law enforcers, political intervention, and the effectiveness of sanctions imposed on perpetrators of corruption. The study seeks to analyze the legal framework governing corruption eradication in Indonesia and identify obstacles in its implementation. This study also looks at legal tactics that can be used to improve the efficacy of anti-corruption efforts. This study takes a normative legal approach and concentrates on analyzing pertinent laws and regulations, court records, and scholarly works. This study's data came from secondary sources including books, scientific journals, and reports from anti-corruption organizations, as well as primary sources like relevant laws and regulations. It is anticipated that this investigation will provide a deeper insight of the effectiveness of the law in eradicating corruption in Indonesia and to find aspects that need to be improved in the existing legal system. Thus, this study can provide academic contributions and practical recommendations for policymakers to strengthen the eradication of corruption in Indonesia. In addition to analyzing the legal framework and challenges, this study also explores the role of public awareness and participation in the fight against corruption in Indonesia. Public involvement, such as through the reporting of corrupt activities and participation in anti-corruption campaigns, can significantly contribute to strengthening anti-corruption efforts.

The Law on State-Owned Enterprises (BUMN) by the Indonesian House of Representatives on February 4, 2025 has been ratified, and then signed by President Prabowo Subianto on February 24, 2025, destroying the concept of who the state administrators are as regulated in Law Number 28 of 1999 concerning the Implementation of a Clean State Free from Corruption, Collusion, and Nepotism.Law No. 1 of 2025 concerning BUMN, places the directors, commissioners, and supervisors of the state-owned company not as state administrators. This means that the Corruption Eradication Commission or KPK can no longer handle law enforcement in BUMN if corruption occurs, except for the Police, Prosecutor's Office and BPK (supervision), as stated in Article 3X of Law No. 1 of 2025, which states that: "The Agency's organs and employees are not state administrators. It is emphasized again in Article 9G: Members of the Board of Directors, Board of Commissioners, and Supervisory Board of BUMN are not state administrators". Meanwhile, financial supervision is still carried out by the Audit Board as stated in Article 3K: Audit of the management and financial responsibility of the Agency is carried out by the Audit Board. Although in the KPK Law, it is stated in Article 11 paragraph (1) that: "In carrying out the duties as referred to in Article 6 letter e, the Corruption Eradication Commission has the authority to conduct investigations, inquiries, and prosecutions against Corruption Crimes that: a. involve law enforcement officers, State Administrators, and other people related to Corruption Crimes committed by law enforcement officers or State Administrators; and/or b. involve state losses of at least IDR 1,000,000,000.00 (one billion rupiah)".Therefore, the Law Order, the KPK must submit and obey to carry it out, because the Law (UU) functions as a basic or principal rule for organizing the state, regulating society, a tool to limit power, and as a means of social renewal. The Law also functions to regulate life in society, the nation, and the state and is expected to be able to resolve various problems that exist in society.In fact, the impact of corruption in BUMN is no joke. The destruction of economic growth, state and community income can be disrupted which results in direct state losses, but leads to the potential for increasing poverty and the loss of the government's safety net in the form of declining quality of public services and investor confidence in Indonesia, etc.

Corruption is a serious crime that has a significant impact on the government, the economy, and public welfare. The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), an independent organization charged with combating corruption, plays a crucial role in the Indonesian legal system and is empowered to carry out investigations, inquiries, and prosecutions against corruption crimes to uphold the supremacy of the law and create a clean government. However, along the way, the KPK's performance has experienced various challenges, both regulation, politics, and technicalities in carrying out its duties. Changes in regulations, especially through the revision of Law Number 30 of 2002 enacted in 2019, are one of the factors that influence the effectiveness of this institution in carrying out its duties. This study strives to analyze the performance of the KPK in enforcing the law on corruption crimes in Indonesia. The main focus of this study includes an evaluation of the effectiveness of the KPK in handling corruption cases, the challenges faced, and strategies that can be applied to improve the performance of this institution. The methods used in this study are normative and empirical juridical methods. The examination of various laws and regulations applying normative legal approaches governing the eradication of corruption, and investigating official documents such as the KPK's annual report. Meanwhile, the empirical approach is carried out by analyzing case data handled by the KPK. The research results are expected to provide an overview of the effectiveness of the KPK in enforcing the law against criminal acts of corruption and provide constructive recommendations for efforts to eradicate corruption in Indonesia.

This study examines the application of material criminal law and the judge's legal considerations in two corruption cases: Central Jakarta District Court Decisions No. 3/Pid.Sus-TPK/2025/PN Jkt.Pst. and No. 21/Pid.Sus-TPK/2025/PN Jkt.Pst. Conducted within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, the research uses literature review methods, including laws, court decisions, and related legal literature. The study adopts a descriptive approach to analyze and present findings. Results indicate differing views between the public prosecutor and the panel of judges. The Public Prosecutor believes the defendant is proven guilty under Article 2(1) of Law No. 31/1999 on the Eradication of Corruption (amended by Law No. 20/2001), in conjunction with Article 55(1) of the Criminal Code, Law No. 46/2009 on the Corruption Court, and Law No. 8/1981 on Criminal Procedure. However, a dissenting opinion emerged among the judges. One judge disagreed with the majority, arguing that Judex Facti incorrectly applied the law. The judge emphasized that in cases with alternative charges, the court must evaluate all charges collectively rather than selectively, as in subsidiary charges. Therefore, the judge believed that the charge meeting the legal elements revealed in court should be selected based on comprehensive evaluation. This dissent highlights the legal complexity and interpretive challenges in corruption trials under Indonesian law.

The Constitutional Court's decision No. 112/PUU-XX/2022, which changed the term of office for the leadership of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) from four years to five years, has sparked controversy in the realm of Indonesian constitutional law. The Constitutional Court, which is supposed to act as a negative legislator, is considered to have exceeded the limits of its authority by establishing new norms in its decision. This research aims to analyze whether the action is a form of deviation of the Constitutional Court's authority referring to the 1945 Constitution and Law Number 24 of 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court. This research uses a normative juridical method with a descriptive-analytical approach through a literature study of regulations, scientific journals, and other legal sources. The research findings indicate that the Constitutional Court not only declared Article 34 paragraph (1) of the KPK Law contrary to the 1945 Constitution, but also stipulated a direct change in the term of office to five years, including for the current KPK leadership. This action is considered a form of judicial activism that deviates from the principle of separation of powers and the principle of non-retroactivity of law. In conclusion, the Constitutional Court's decision creates legal uncertainty, opens space for politicization of the judiciary, and sets a negative precedent in Indonesia's constitutional system. Therefore, it is necessary to reaffirm the limits of the authority of the Constitutional Court in order to remain within the framework of constitutional law that upholds the principle of checks and balances at all times.

Corruption in Indonesia has evolved into a complex phenomenon, often involving money laundering and financial statement manipulation as mechanisms to conceal illicit assets within seemingly legal financial systems. This study focuses on the bribery case involving the Regent of Kepulauan Meranti as the research object, aiming to trace the flow of funds, financial manipulation techniques, and the involvement of both individual and corporate actors. The objective of this research is to analyze the interconnection between corruption, money laundering, and financial statement fraud, and to examine the legal implications of the criminal charges applied within Indonesia’s penal system. This study adopts a qualitative approach using a case study method, with primary data drawn from official documents issued by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) and secondary data from credible media sources. The findings reveal that the corruption scheme was systematically carried out by disguising illegal funds through property investments and business entities. The study also highlights the insufficient application of cumulative charges and emphasizes the need for regulatory enhancement, particularly concerning illicit enrichment provisions. This research underscores the urgency of reforming supervision systems, penal structures, and strengthening the role of forensic accounting in detecting and preventing organized financial crimes in the public sector.

Corruption is a structural problem that continues to hamper development and equitable welfare in Indonesia. The data sources used consist of 13 national scientific journals, 3 reports from non-governmental organizations (ICW, KPK, TII), and 4 credible mass media outlets (Kompas, Tempo, CNBC Indonesia, and BBC Indonesia) published between 2019 and 2025. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the consistency and institutional challenges in anti-corruption efforts, as well as to recommend strengthening the integrity system in public policy governance in the future. Based on an analysis of three strategic cases—e-KTP, COVID-19 social assistance, and the free lunch program—the role of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) shows a transformation from a repressive approach to a more preventive and systemic one. In the e-KTP and social assistance cases, the KPK emphasized its strong law enforcement function, while in the free lunch program, the KPK positioned itself as a strategic supervisor from the planning stage to prevent potential irregularities.

The protection of justice collaborators (JC) is a vital element in the eradication of extraordinary crimes such as corruption, narcotics, and premeditated murder. However, in the practice of criminal justice in Indonesia, there is still a gap between the normative legal framework and the implementation of protection for JCs. This research aims to juridically evaluate the effectiveness of the JC protection mechanism based on national regulations and judicial practice. The method used is normative legal research with a case study approach, through analysis of legislation, court decisions, and LPSK documents. The results of the study show that weak institutional coordination, inconsistency of decisions, and lack of post-trial protection are the main obstacles. It is necessary to codify JC protection in criminal procedure law and strengthen the capacity of legal apparatus to realize comprehensive protection. This research contributes to the development of a fairer and more responsive justice system in protecting the moral courage of JCs.

Pretrial proceedings play a strategic role in Indonesia's criminal justice system as a judicial oversight mechanism to ensure the legality of law enforcement actions and the protection of suspects’ human rights. In corruption cases, however, pretrial motions are often exploited as procedural loopholes to invalidate ongoing investigations due to the absence of rigid legal standards and inconsistent interpretations by judges sometimes extending into the merits of the case, which should fall outside the scope of pretrial jurisdiction. This study examines the ideal concept of pretrial review using a normative juridical approach, emphasizing the due process of law principle, the primacy of lex specialis under Article 26A of the Anti-Corruption Law, and its harmonization with the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). The research concludes that pretrial mechanisms should function solely as limited judicial review, restricted to evaluating procedural legality. Additionally, the study highlights the significance of establishing Preliminary Examination Judges (Hakim Pemeriksa Pendahuluan) as proposed in the Draft Criminal Procedure Code. These judges would proactively supervise investigative actions, ensuring procedural compliance and minimizing the misuse of pretrial remedies by corruption suspects. Strengthening normative frameworks and judicial guidelines is thus essential to foster coherent, fair rulings and support the integrity and effectiveness of anti-corruption law enforcement.

Corruption is a very serious form of crime that destroys the system of government, hinders development, and reduces public trust in state institutions. In terms of law enforcement in the country, the Attorney General's Office has an important position as an institution authorized to investigate and prosecute corruption cases. Based on Law Number 16 of 2004 together with Law Number 11 of 2021, the Attorney General's Office not only acts as a public prosecutor, but also as an investigator in corruption cases. This article aims to discuss the role and authority of the Attorney General's Office from a legal political perspective, as well as to analyze the various challenges faced in efforts to eradicate corruption. This research uses a normative juridical approach and legal politics, with a literature method through the study of laws and regulations, official documents, and scientific literature. The results of the study show that formally, the Attorney General's Office has a strong legal basis in handling corruption cases, including the authority to investigate, prosecute, and execute court decisions. However, in practice, the AGO faces various obstacles such as a weak legal system, a culture of impunity, political intervention, and limited human resources. To improve the effectiveness of law enforcement, it is necessary to strengthen institutional capacity, the independence of law enforcement officers, the utilisation of information technology, and synergy between law enforcement agencies. Anti-corruption education, public involvement in monitoring, budget transparency, and international cooperation are also important parts of the overall corruption eradication strategy. With a holistic approach, the Attorney General's Office is expected to be at the forefront of realising fair, transparent and accountable law enforcement.

The corruption that occurred at PT Pertamina reflects the weak integrity of public officials and the inadequacy of internal oversight systems. The positive legal approach has proven ineffective in addressing corruption in practice. Therefore, this study departs from the need for an alternative approach based on Islamic political values such as trustworthiness (amanah), justice, and supervision in addressing corruption within state-owned enterprises (SOEs). This research employs a descriptive qualitative approach using a literature review method. Data were collected from academic journals, official reports by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) and the Audit Board of Indonesia (BPK), as well as credible media sources. The data were analyzed by categorizing them according to the principles of trustworthiness, justice, and supervision, and then interpreted through the framework of Islamic political thought to deeply understand the root causes of corruption. Corruption in PT Pertamina involves power protection, budget manipulation, and procurement fraud. Violations of trust, injustice in resource distribution, and weak supervision indicate the absence of Islamic principles in corporate governance. Ethical and spiritual values have not yet been internalized within the bureaucratic system and organizational culture of SOEs. This study concludes that corruption in PT Pertamina is a result of the loss of trust, the breakdown of justice, and weak oversight. An Islamic political approach that emphasizes ethics and spiritual responsibility is highly relevant to be applied. These values can help form a just and transparent governance system and rebuild public trust in SOEs.

This article aims to analyze the role of forensic auditors in the process of proving corruption crimes in Indonesia, as well as the quality of evidence produced by forensic auditors in supporting law enforcement. This study uses a normative legal approach with legislative analysis and a comparative approach. The results of the study indicate that forensic auditors play a very significant role in detecting, uncovering, and preventing corruption through investigative auditing. Forensic auditors are not only involved in the process of gathering evidence related to financial crimes but also serve as expert witnesses who provide strong evidence in court. The quality of evidence provided by forensic auditors depends on their professional competence and the application of systematic analysis techniques, as well as the importance of collaboration with other law enforcement agencies. There is a need for improved regulation, ongoing training, and closer synergy between forensic auditors and legal institutions to strengthen the eradication of corruption in Indonesia.

Corruption remains a serious issue that hinders development and erodes public trust in the government, particularly in countries like Indonesia and Malaysia. Both nations have long histories of dealing with systemic corruption. This study aims to compare the legal systems and anti-corruption law enforcement in Indonesia and Malaysia to identify challenges and areas for improvement. The research uses a descriptive qualitative method with a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) approach, analyzing legal documents, academic journals, and regulations related to anti-corruption agencies in both countries. This study employs legal system theory and institutional theory. The main problem examined is how anti-corruption law enforcement differs between Indonesia and Malaysia and what the main enforcement challenges are. The findings show that while Indonesia’s Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) was once powerful, recent political interference and regulatory revisions have weakened its impact. Conversely, Malaysia has more comprehensive legal instruments, but its enforcement agencies struggle with independence and political pressure. In conclusion, both countries must strengthen legal supremacy, institutional independence, and public engagement to enhance the effectiveness of anti-corruption efforts.

This study discusses the phenomenon of increasing corruption cases in Indonesia, which is caused by the lack of effective criminal penalties. Although Law No. 20/2001 concerning the Eradication of Corruption regulates the threat of the death penalty for perpetrators of corruption, in practice it has never been implemented. This study uses the approach of the law enforcement system theory and the theory of punishment, with normative legal methods and literature studies. The results show that the difficulty of implementing the death penalty in corruption cases in Indonesia is caused by the pros and cons and rejection from the community and law enforcement. This finding indicates the importance of reforming the death penalty policy for perpetrators of corruption to provide a deterrent effect and prevent similar cases in the future. Therefore, this study recommends improving the law enforcement system and more effective anti-corruption policies.

The third amendment to Law Number 1 of 2025 on State-Owned Enterprises has presented several juridical issues that need to be studied in depth, one of which is related to the establishment of the Daya Anagata Nusantara Investment Management Agency (Danantara). One of the main issues is the lack of public participation in drafting regulations, both at the planning stage and the formulation of legal norms. In addition, the existence of Danantara, which adopts the Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF) model, raises the potential for overlap with a similar institution, the Indonesia Investment Authority (INA), which was established earlier. Provisions regarding the filling of organ positions, exceptions to the definition of state finances and losses, and weak external oversight mechanisms further strengthen concerns about irregularities in governance. These conditions are potentially at odds with the general principles of good governance (AAUPB), the Law on Government Administration, the Law on State Ministries, and the Law on the Eradication of Corruption. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the establishment of the Daya Anagata Nusantara Investment Management Agency (Danantara), focusing on the legal basis for its establishment and its compatibility with the principles of constitutional law and government administration in Indonesia.

Corruption is an extraordinary crime and has a systemic impact that is detrimental to the state and society at large. To overcome this problem, the Indonesian legal system provides the option of implementing the death penalty, which is regulated in Law Number 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Corruption. However, the application of the death penalty has raised significant debate from various perspectives, both legal, philosophical, and sociological, considering that this action is contrary to the principle of respect for human rights. This study will discuss the threat of the death penalty as a form of ultimum remedium, namely as a last resort carried out in certain circumstances, such as when corruption occurs in a crisis or disaster situation. To analyze the effectiveness and urgency of implementing the death penalty in the context of anti-corruption law enforcement, a legal-normative approach is used