Publication Search

The purpose of this writing is to analyze Article 14 of Law Number 31 of 1999 jo. Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Corruption has a delegative character, because its enactment depends on the provisions of other laws that expressly declare a violation as a criminal act of corruption. The construction of these norms in practice gives rise to ambivalence in law enforcement, especially when various acts that are detrimental to state finances occur in strategic sectors that are not explicitly qualified as corruption crimes in sectoral laws. This condition has the potential to create a legal vacuum and hinder the effectiveness of eradicating corruption as an extraordinary crime. This study aims to analyze the practice of implementing Article 14 of the Law on the Eradication of Corruption and examine these provisions from the perspective of legal certainty, justice, and criminal law policy. The research method used is normative legal research with a legislative approach and a case approach. Research data was obtained through literature studies on primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials that were analyzed qualitatively. The results of the study show that the delegative and limiting nature of Article 14 has implications for the low predictability of the law and opens up ambivalence between norms and law enforcement practices. In reality, law enforcement officials often apply the Corruption Crime Law to acts that are normatively outside the scope of Article 14, taking into account the existence of state financial losses and the interests of substantive justice. Therefore, Article 14 needs to be interpreted systemically and progressively and supported by the reformulation of norms and harmonization of laws and regulations to be in line with the dynamics and complexity of modern corruption crimes.

This study discusses the function of corporate criminal liability for State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs), particularly SOEs, by examining a case of corruption in the sale of commodities at Perum Bulog Jakarta in 2022-2023, which caused financial losses to the state amounting to approximately IDR 7.192 billion. This case illustrates the abuse of authority by SOE officials, which not only reflects individual violations but also is a symptom of weaknesses in the culture of internal control and compliance in state-owned companies. The purpose of this study is to examine the regulation and application of the principle of corporate criminal liability in State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) with reference to Law Law Number 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning Eradication of Corruption Crimes, the latest Criminal Code (Law Number 1 of 2023), and Supreme Court Regulation Number 13 of 2016. The method used is normative legal research with a juridical approach, which focuses on the review of legislation, the concept of corporate criminal liability, and the analysis of related court decisions. The results of the study show that acts of corruption involving Bulog have fulfilled the elements of corporate criminal liability, because they were carried out in the exercise of official authority and were intended for the benefit of the institution. The application of the provisions in the new Criminal Code, particularly Articles 45 to 47 and Article 118, confirms the position of corporations as legal subjects in the criminal law system. The implications of this research highlight the need to strengthen the Good Corporate Governance (GCG) system in SOEs and the need for consistent enforcement of corporate criminal liability by law enforcement officials to ensure justice, transparency, and the prevention of structural corruption in Indonesia.  

The number of corruption cases in Indonesia continues to increase. The termination of the investigation of alleged corruption at the Aceh Truth and Reconciliation Commission by the Banda Aceh City Resort Police based on a Memorandum of Understanding between the Government Internal Supervision Apparatus and Law Enforcement Apparatus raises problems because it is contrary to the Law on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes which emphasizes that the return of state losses does not erase the crime. This inconsistency raises questions about the validity of stopping corruption cases through the Memorandum of Understanding. This study aims to assess the validity of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government Internal Supervision Apparatus and the Law Enforcement Apparatus as the basis for stopping corruption cases, as well as to outline the legal process that should be taken by the Banda Aceh City Resort Police. This research uses a normative juridical method with a legislative, case, and conceptual approach, based on secondary data from various legal materials. The analysis was carried out in an analytical descriptive manner. The results of the study show that the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government Internal Supervision Apparatus and the Law Enforcement Apparatus cannot be the basis for the termination of corruption cases at the Aceh Truth and Reconciliation Commission because it is only coordinated, not a source of criminal law. The note is only suitable for use to follow up on reports through audits. In addition, the Banda Aceh City Resort Police should continue the case to the investigation stage because the elements of corruption, evidence, as well as elements of mens rea and actus reus have been fulfilled without any justification or excuse. It is suggested that the memorandum of understanding can only be a coordinating guideline, not a basis for stopping corruption cases. Any report must still be processed, and the Banda Aceh City Resort Police are obliged to continue the investigation even though the state losses have been returned.

Corruption in Indonesia is not merely a moral transgression but an extraordinary economic crime that depletes national resources. The ultimate objective of corruption eradication, therefore, must be the restoration of state financial losses (asset recovery).  However, the current formulation of the criminal law system specifically Article 18 of Law No. 31 of 1999 contains a critical policy flaw. The provision of "Subsidiary Imprisonment" (Pidana Pengganti) allows convicts to substitute their financial restitution obligations with a disproportionately short prison term. This mechanism inadvertently provides an economic incentive for corruptors to conceal assets and choose imprisonment, resulting in significant state revenue loss. This study aims to critique the current penal policy formulation and propose a comprehensive reformulation of the compensation system. The research employs a normative-juridical method with a statutory and conceptual approach, utilizing the "Economic Analysis of Law" theory to evaluate the efficiency of sanctions. The study argues that the penal policy must shift from a "person-based" approach (in personam) to an "asset-based" approach (in rem). It is imperative to abolish the subsidiary imprisonment option for high-value corruption and implement "Non-Conviction Based Forfeiture" to maximize the recovery of state losses. Furthermore, this policy shift requires law enforcers with high-level cognitive skills to trace complex financial trails.

The ambiguity of the concept of state economic loss in Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 of the Corruption Crime Law (Tipikor Law) has yet to be defined normatively or by an official institution with the authority to do so. This uncertainty has given rise to legal problems in law enforcement, especially after Constitutional Court Decision No. 25/PUU-XIV/2016, which changed the qualification of corruption offenses to material offenses, so that the proof of economic loss to the state must be actual loss. However, in practice, as in the Surya Darmadi corruption case, law enforcement officials still face difficulties in determining the measure and method of proving economic loss to the state in a lawful manner. The issues in this study are the basis for the judge's consideration of the element of economic loss to the state in the Central Jakarta District Court Decision No. 62/Pid.Sus-TPK/2022/PN.Jkt.Pst and the obstacles and constraints in proving the element of economic loss to the state in criminal acts of corruption.This study uses a normative legal method with a statute approach, a case approach, and a conceptual approach. The results of the study show that the first-level panel of judges assessed that environmental damage and the loss of potential state revenue due to the illegal conversion of forest areas were part of the actual economic loss to the state, while the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of limiting this element to actual loss in accordance with Constitutional Court Decision No. 25/PUU-XIV/2016. The obstacles and constraints in proving the element of state economic loss in corruption crimes stem from internal and external factors that are interrelated and affect the effectiveness of law enforcement.

Law Number 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning Eradication of Corruption Crimes (Tipikor Law) requires the existence of state financial losses as an important element in Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3. Following Constitutional Court Decision No. 25/PUU-XIV/2016, proof of state losses must be actual losses, rather than potential losses. However, in practice, there is a discrepancy between legal norms and the reality of law enforcement, especially in state-owned enterprises (SOEs) engaged in banking. There is disharmony between the Anti-Corruption Law, the State Finance Law, and the SOE Law, particularly regarding the financial status of SOEs as separate state assets. This study uses a normative legal method with a statute approach. The results show that proving state financial losses in banking SOEs related to corruption requires an examination by an authorised institution to declare state financial losses. Based on Article 10 paragraph (1) of Law No. 15 of 2006 concerning the Audit Board, it is explained that the Audit Board has the authority to determine the existence or absence of state losses. The audit process carried out by the Audit Board on state-owned banking enterprises suspected of causing state financial losses must be an investigative audit process, not a state loss calculation audit that is usually carried out on government institutions.

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.

This study is motivated by the ongoing debate regarding the application of the death penalty to perpetrators of corruption in Indonesia, particularly in relation to the protection of human rights as stipulated in Law Number 39 of 1999. The purpose of this research is to explain the extent to which the death penalty can be appropriately and proportionally applied to corruptors while considering human rights principles. This study employs a normative legal approach focused on the analysis of statutory regulations and relevant legal literature. The data is analyzed using a qualitative juridical method, emphasizing a normative review of applicable positive law. The findings reveal a discrepancy between the imposition of the death penalty for corruption crimes and the right to life guaranteed by Indonesia’s human rights legal instruments. The implication of this research highlights the need to reconsider the policy of capital punishment for corrupt practices to ensure alignment with the principles of justice, humanity, and respect for human rights within the national legal system.  

Judicial sentencing through court judgments often does not align with the ideal objectives of sentencing itself, especially in cases involving corruption crimes. Judgment Number 26/Pid.Sus-TPK/2024/Pn Amb serves as an example of the disparity between the prosecutor's sentence recommendation and the final verdict delivered by the judge. In this case, the prosecutor demanded a seven-year prison sentence, while the judge sentenced the defendant to only two years and six months, with the mitigating consideration that the defendant did not personally benefit from the state's financial loss. Therefore, the writer conducts an analytical review of this judgment through a criminological perspective and judicial reasoning. The analysis of Judgment Number 26/Pid.Sus-TPK/2024/Pn Amb is intended to assess how well the judgment fulfills the ideal function of law.

This study discusses law enforcement against corruption crimes that occur in the process of providing People's Business Credit (KUR) facilities at the BRI Bone Pantai Unit as well as the form of criminal responsibility from the management of the banks involved. Through a normative-empirical approach, this study illustrates the weak internal supervision system of banks and the inefficiency of coordination between law enforcement that causes state losses of billions of rupiah. The findings show that the modus operandi in the form of data engineering and abuse of authority is carried out by bank employees in collaboration with external parties. The law enforcement carried out has not touched the structural roots of the weaknesses of the banking system and business ethics in the distribution of KUR. In the context of Lawrence M. Friedman's theory of legal systems, aspects of the structure, substance, and culture of the law show a failure to guarantee accountability and prevention. Therefore, the reconstruction of law enforcement needs to involve systemic improvements, the strengthening of management's criminal responsibility, and the strengthening of the capacity of the bank's internal supervisory institutions so that public trust in the KUR program can be restored.

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.

The function of Prosecutorial Intelligence (Intel Kejaksaan) holds a crucial strategic role, not only in supporting prosecution duties but also in crime prevention, safeguarding national development, and recovering state assets. Despite having a strong legal basis and a broad mandate, this function often faces operational challenges, data integration issues, and resource optimization constraints that limit its effectiveness within the dynamic law enforcement ecosystem. This research aims to deeply analyze the role and challenges of Prosecutorial Intelligence and formulate a model for optimizing its function to enhance the effectiveness of law enforcement in Indonesia. The research methodology employed is normative and sociological juridical with a qualitative approach, gathering data through literature review, regulatory study, and in-depth interviews with practitioners and academics. The findings indicate that the optimization of the Prosecutorial Intelligence function requires three main pillars: (1) Enhancing the capacity and professionalism of human resources (HR) through modern intelligence training and digital forensics. (2) Integrating and ensuring interoperability of the intelligence information system with other law enforcement agencies (Police, KPK, PPATK) to build a comprehensive intelligence big data. (3) Expanding the spectrum of intelligence operations, shifting from a traditional focus on corruption crimes to transnational crimes, cybercrime, and securing strategic national investments. This optimization is expected to transform Prosecutorial Intelligence into a proactive, data-oriented strategic early warning system capable of supporting Prosecutors in making evidence-based decisions, thus achieving effective, just, and impactful law enforcement for the community.

Thel delath pelnalty has beleln a folrm olf punishmelnt sincel ancielnt timels and has belcolmel an intelnsel colnvelrsatioln amolng elxpelrts belcausel olf thel colntradictolry valuels helld by its suppolrtelrs and olppolnelnts. This study appliels a nolrmativel lelgal relselarch approlach tol asselss thel implelmelntatioln olf thel delath pelnalty in colrruptioln casels frolm thel pelrspelctivel olf human rights proltelctioln. In this study, thel data analysis melthold useld was qualitativel data analysis with a delscriptivel approlach. Thel usel olf thel delath pelnalty as a sanctioln folr colrruptioln is thel molst elxtrelmel folrm olf punishmelnt folr pelrpeltratolrs olf such crimels, belcausel it invollvels taking livels as a relsult olf thelir actiolns. Thel applicatioln olf thel delath pelnalty is colnsidelreld tol viollatel human rights, as stateld in articlels 28A and 28I olf thel 1945 Colnstitutioln, Articlel 4 and Articlel 9 olf Law Nol. 39 olf 1999, and articlel 3 olf thel UDHR. Thel implelmelntatioln olf thel delath pelnalty in colrruptioln casels sparkeld delbatel frolm a human rights pelrspelctivel. Solmel arguel that such melasurels arel colntrary tol human rights, particularly thel right tol lifel.

Corruption crimes are not only committed by civilians, but can be committed by military soldiers, namely the TNI who are educated with discipline. The handling of corruption cases committed by TNI soldiers together with civilians is handled through a connexity trial regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code. Although there are rules governing, there are still discrepancies in law enforcement. The main problems in this study are: (1) Is it appropriate for corruption cases committed by military officials to be tried in the Military Court? (2) What are the obstacles in law enforcement against high-ranking military officials who commit corruption crimes?This research is normative legal research, namely by examining literature or legal materials consisting of primary legal materials, secondary legal materials, and tertiary legal materials. Normative legal research is a scientific research procedure to find the truth based on the logic of legal science from its normative side. The results of this study indicate that: (1) is it appropriate for corruption cases by military officials to be tried in the Military Court: The handling of corruption cases in Basarnas involving active military personnel who are tried in military courts is considered inappropriate because it will create an impression of inconsistent law enforcement, because it contradicts the provisions of Law No.8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code and Law No.48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power. (2) Obstacles in law enforcement against high-ranking military officials who commit corruption crimes: Corruption crimes involving active military members stem from disharmonization of laws in the provisions of the Military Justice Law, Corruption Court Law, TNI Law, KPK Law, and Criminal Procedure Code. The researcher's suggestion is that to minimize the differences of opinion that continue to emerge, an extensive regulation on connexity should be made so that it can serve as a guideline in handling corruption cases involving military personnel and civil society.

This research aims to explore and reconstruct the legal protection policy for justice collaborators in corruption crimes in Indonesia. Although their existence is vital in combating corruption, many perpetrators are reluctant to come forward due to uncertainty in protection and the potential risks they face. Weaknesses in the existing policies, including a lack of transparency and adequate security guarantees, hinder perpetrators from collaborating with law enforcement. Therefore, this research identifies various challenges faced by justice collaborators and highlights the importance of comprehensive legal protection reform. This study offers recommendations for appropriate and effective legal protection efforts for justice collaborators in handling corruption cases. By analyzing protection practices in other countries and applying restorative justice principles, this research aims to provide solutions that not only protect justice collaborators but also enhance public trust in the justice system. It is hoped that the results of this research can contribute to formulating more effective and responsive policies to meet the protection needs of justice collaborators in Indonesia, encouraging more perpetrators to bravely come forward in the fight against corruption.

The rampant corruption that continues to be demonstrated by public officials makes it seem as if the law has run out of ways to overcome it. And corruption is a type of crime that is only committed by people who have high intellectual capacity and ability. They continue to try how to avoid corruption crimes, so one of the methods they use is the pattern of giving gifts which is actually intended as a form of bribery. This study analyzes the concept of bribery and gratification and the parameters that differentiate between the two as regulated in several Articles of the Corruption Eradication Law. This involves the application of normative legal research supported by court decisions to clarify the differences. The results of this study indicate that bribery requires a meeting of minds between the bribe giver and the bribe recipient which is not found in the decision . The reporting mechanism and reversal of the burden of proof do not apply to bribery while the sting operation does not apply to gratification because it cannot meet the provisions of Article 1 number 19 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Criminal sanctions are also imposed on both the giver and the recipient of the bribe, while the act of the giver of gratification is not a criminal act. Keywords: reversal of burden of proof, caught red-handed, reporting mechanism .

The rapid development of technology has facilitated daily human activities, one of which is the existence of digital financial systems for transactions and investments, with Bitcoin being one of the products of digital currency. The purpose of this research is to carefully examine and analyze the role of digital forensics in efforts to trace the proceeds of corruption crimes that have been converted into Bitcoin. The legal research method used is a normative juridical approach, conducting research on library materials and utilizing the Statute Approach and Case Approach. The results of the research conclude that digital forensics is an important process in legal investigations involving the identification, collection, analysis, and preservation of digital evidence from electronic devices.

Corruption is a serious crime that has a wide impact on economic stability, public trust, and governance. Impoverishment punishment, as a form of alternative sanction, aims to provide a deterrent effect for perpetrators of corruption by confiscating assets obtained illegally. This study analyzes the effectiveness of the implementation of impoverishment punishment in the context of the legal system in Indonesia. The approach used is a normative and empirical study by evaluating existing regulations, case studies of the implementation of impoverishment punishment, and its impact on perpetrators and prevention of corruption in the future. The results of the study show that although impoverishment punishment has the potential to be an effective instrument, its implementation faces various challenges, including weak law enforcement, political resistance, and regulatory limitations. Therefore, legal reform and institutional strengthening are needed to ensure that this punishment can be implemented optimally in efforts to eradicate corruption.

The application of main and additional criminal witnesses in the PTPK Law has become firm with the existence of legal norms for the return of state financial losses that do not eliminate the criminalization of the perpetrators of criminal acts but only factors that alleviate punishment. This is important so that there is no disparity in punishment. And likewise punish paying restitution if the act is committed jointly, so that a sense of justice occurs,The research method used is normative juridical. Which type of data used is primair legal material obtained from all publications on law, literature that is not an official document. Publications about the law include, among others, the internet, textbooks, law journals, articles, comments, court regulations and other sources; The types of criminal sanctions in the PTPK Law, namely in the form of principal punishment and additional punishment in the form of restitution, are closely related. Aspects of the amount of state financial losses, aspects of the perpetrator's guilt, aspects of the benefits obtained by the perpetrator, the impact caused by the perpetrator and the return of losses made by the perpetrator. Such is the case in imposing additional punishment in the form of paying restitution. In the PTPK Law, the amount of restitution is interpreted as “not merely assessing state financial losses, but assessing how much money is actually received by the perpetrator”, so that the imposition of restitution is in accordance with objective and proportional principles. Likewise, the imposition of restitution in the case of corruption crimes committed jointly and tried simultaneously, the additional restitution cannot be imposed jointly.

One of the roles of the Bank Perekonomian Rakyat (BPR) is to provide credit to improve the economic welfare of the lower middle class through micro and small business services. However, the provision of BPR credit is prone to misappropriation, one of which is used as an election campaign fund. This research is a legal research in analyzing the problem using literature study which is analyzed qualitatively. The results obtained from this research are that the misuse of BPR credit used as campaign funding can be suspected of being a criminal act of corruption and money laundering because it is obtained from state finances and there are indications of disguising and hiding money. The source of state finances provided to BPRs can be viewed in terms of state capital participation in the form of securities and the provision of facilities provided by the government. In anticipating campaign funds originating from criminal acts, the Badan Pengawas Pemilu must cooperate with other parties such as the Public Accounting Office to conduct campaign fund audits and related law enforcement officials such as the Pusat Penelusuran dan Analisis Transaksi Keuangan and the Corruption Eradication Commission to prevent and prosecute the use of money from corruption crimes for campaign funding.