Publication Search

This study aims to analyze the legal accountability of three judges of the Surabaya District Court who were proven to have been involved in bribery practices during the examination process of a case that resulted in the acquittal of Gregorius Ronald Tannur, the son of Edward Tannur, a former member of the Indonesian House of Representatives from the National Awakening Party (PKB). The study focuses on identifying the forms of legal responsibility that may be imposed on judges who receive bribes, as well as examining the abuse of judicial authority that influenced the issuance of the court decision. This research employs a normative juridical method using a statutory and case approach, through an analysis of Law Number 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power, Law Number 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law Number 20 of 2001 on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes, Decision of the Surabaya District Court Number 454/Pid.B/2024/PN SBY, and the Joint Decree of the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission of 2009 concerning the Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Judicial Conduct. The findings indicate that judges proven to have accepted bribes may be subject to criminal sanctions in the form of imprisonment and/or fines, ethical sanctions imposed by the Judicial Commission, as well as administrative sanctions in the form of dishonorable dismissal, and that court decisions rendered by judges involved in bribery may be challenged through available legal remedies. This study underscores the importance of strengthening internal and external oversight mechanisms and enhancing transparency in judicial proceedings to maintain and restore public trust in the judiciary.

This study analyzes the practice of tender rigging, which is a dominant form of irregularity in government procurement of goods and services. The study focuses on identifying and analyzing the modus operandi, which includes the use of borrowing flags, document manipulation, leaking of the Self-Estimated Price (HPS), and price agreements between participants (tender arisan). The research findings reveal that the collusion occurs in two patterns: vertical between providers and the committee, and horizontal between providers. Both patterns fulfill the elements of unlawfulness as stipulated in Articles 2 and 3 of the Corruption Eradication Law. This practice of tender rigging causes significant state financial losses and undermines fair business competition. Therefore, the effectiveness of law enforcement depends heavily on accurate proof of state losses and good coordination between law enforcement officials and the Business Competition Supervisory Commission to ensure fair resolution in accordance with applicable legal provisions.

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.

Corruption in Indonesia has become a systemic and complex issue, posing a threat to economic, social, and political stability. Despite various efforts, including the establishment of the Corruption Eradication Commission and robust law enforcement, Indonesia’s Corruption Perception Index has remained stagnant or declined in recent years. This is primarily due to the inadequacy of conventional audit methods, which struggle to detect complex and hidden corruption schemes. This study examines how the role of investigative audits by the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) can be optimized through synergy with the Whistleblowing System (WBS) to enhance corruption eradication efforts in Indonesia. Investigative audits, which focus on detecting fraud, are crucial as they can convert audit evidence into legal proof in corruption cases. However, the BPK’s role is often hindered by limited human resources, independence, and weak coordination. Using qualitative research and a literature review, this study analyzes relevant documents, books, scientific journals, and official reports to identify and classify relevant data. The findings indicate that strong synergy between BPK's investigative audits and the WBS is essential. Optimizing these two instruments requires significant reforms, including strengthening whistleblower protection laws, improving inter-agency collaboration, and fostering a robust anti-corruption culture. The study concludes that BPK’s investigative audits are effective in uncovering state losses, but their success depends on follow-up actions and coordination with law enforcement. The WBS can detect corruption early, but its effectiveness is limited by weak whistleblower protection and lack of trust in internal reporting channels.

This study examines the crucial role of political ethics in anti-corruption efforts in Indonesia, focusing on Pancasila as the moral and philosophical foundation (Nasoha et al., 2024; Atqiya & Nasoha, 2024). Through a qualitative literature review, the research reveals that weaknesses in political ethics significantly contribute to corrupt practices among elites and state institutions. The study highlights that corruption often stems from a lack of adherence to ethical standards within the political system. Therefore, strengthening political ethics is essential to preventing corruption. The principles of justice, accountability, and public responsibility are critical to this effort, ensuring that government actions align with ethical values. Pancasila’s core values, especially social justice and gotong royong (mutual cooperation), provide a solid moral framework for fostering a transparent, fair, and integrated government system. By embedding these values into political practice, Indonesia can strengthen its anti-corruption efforts, improve public trust, and promote a more just and accountable political environment.

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 proposed Asset Seizure Bill has become urgent because the existing criminal justice system, as stipulated in the Corruption Eradication Law and the Money Laundering Law, has not been effective in recovering assets derived from crime, especially if the defendant dies, flees, or the criminal proceedings are halted. This study aims to analyze in detail the extent to which the Asset Seizure Bill can be integrated into the existing criminal and civil procedural law framework in Indonesia, as well as how a transparent and accountable mechanism for managing seized assets can be established for the recovery of assets in the public interest. The method used is normative legal research with a legal, conceptual, case, and comparative approach. The findings show that this bill adopts the mechanism of Asset Forfeiture Without Criminalization with an in-rem approach (targeting assets, not perpetrators) through civil court proceedings, as well as implementing the concept of unexplained wealth to expand the scope of forfeiture and close legal loopholes. The implication is that this bill is a strategic instrument in eradicating corruption and recovering state losses amounting to trillions of rupiah, but its success is highly dependent on careful formulation, ensuring due process of law, and the existence of political will and readiness of law enforcement officials.

This research aims to examine the authority of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in handling connectivity corruption cases after the Constitutional Court Decision Number 87/PUU-XXI/2023. This research is a normative legal research with a statute approach and a case approach, using primary and secondary legal materials collected through literature studies. The results of the study show that the Constitutional Court interpreted Article 42 of the KPK Law constitutionally conditionally, so that the KPK remains authorized to handle connectivity cases as long as the handling begins from the beginning by the KPK. This decision provides legal certainty as well as strengthening legitimacy for the KPK in handling cases involving legal subjects from the general and military courts at the same time. This study also shows that structural barriers, multi-interpreted legal substance, and sectoral legal culture are serious challenges in connectivity law enforcement practices. Therefore, it is necessary to harmonize regulations and strengthen the legal structure and culture between institutions in order to realize a more effective, fair, and non-discriminatory eradication of corruption.

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.

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.

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.

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.