Coordination in the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK)'s Prosecution Tasks Based on Independence Perspective

Coordination of KPK prosecution duties as stated in Article 12A of Law no. 19 of 2019 amending Law No. 30 of 2002 concerning the Commission for the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption, or Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK) raises concerns because it creates dependence on other institutions and certainly reduces the independence of the KPK institution. As for some of the problems that need to be known from the existence of this coordination concept, among others: (1) the coordination can be directed towards the form of KPK's subordination to the prosecutor's institution; (2) coordination makes the confidentiality of data held by the KPK not maintained; (3) this coordination is very prone to conflict of interest with the prosecutor's office; (4) this coordination also raises concerns that rotten politics in the resolution of corruption cases may occur. The author uses independence principle analysis. The type of research used in compiling this paper is normative or doctrinal legal research. The research shows that coordination can be done using clear boundaries. First, coordination is still allowed to the extent that it is possible to combine cases that the KPK may not handle. Second, coordination can also be carried out in the event of merging a corruption case that is not the authority of the KPK. Third, the coordination also can be done in the case of the concurrent events. Fourth, the coordination is only related to procedural law.

Legal Comparison against the Death Penalty Sanctions regulated in the Positive Laws of Indonesia and China

Corruption is a severe problem worldwide, so it takes a strict rule of law and strong law enforcement efforts to eradicate it. China's legal system has proven to be effective in reducing corruption among state officials. One of China's anti-corruption efforts is to impose harsh penalties on perpetrators, including the death penalty. In light of this success, this study will conduct a legal comparison with the death penalty, which is regulated in Indonesian and Chinese positive law. The type of research used is normative juridical with a conceptual and statute approach. The data processed in this study include primary data and secondary data with data collection techniques and management using a literature review. The findings of this study highlight the threat of the Death Penalty, as outlined in Article 2 Paragraph (2) of the Corruption Crime Act, which focuses on corrupt acts committed under certain conditions. In Indonesia, no one has ever been sentenced to death for corruption. The People's Republic of China's Criminal Law of the death penalty threat has existed since 1900 AD. Article 383 of the Chinese Criminal Code stipulates that anyone who accepts bribes is subject to the death penalty. A significant difference from this Comparison lies in the classification of capital punishment with a corruption amount of more than 50,000 Yuan and for bribery cases in Chinese regulations. Meanwhile, there is no such regulation in Article 2 paragraph (2) of the Indonesian Corruption Laws.

The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Supervisory Board's Role as a Grantor of Permits in Corruption Crimes

The existence of the Corruption Eradication Commission or Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK)’s Supervisory Board to oversee KPK's work is the result of the KPK Law Number 19 of 2019. This new legislation mandates the KPK Supervisory Board to perform four primary duties. One of the duties of the Board's authority, permitting or not permitting KPK to conduct wiretapping, search, and/or seizure corruption crimes, sparked public outrage due to the fear of attempts to weaken KPK. This research is served for determining whether the role of the KPK Supervisory Board as a licensee for wiretapping, search, and seizure of criminal acts of corruption is functional and will run effectively and efficiently in tackling the eradication of corruption. The research method used is qualitative research with descriptive presentation and a normative juridical approach. According to the findings, the pro-justice authority delegated by law to the KPK Supervisory Board, namely granting permits for wiretapping, search, and confiscation of criminal acts of corruption, has proven to be effective and efficient in combating corruption. It is concluded because, in principle, it is assumed that balancing all the powers of state institutions through supervision is a natural thing to do.

Law Enforcement of Corruption Cases Through a Participatory Society as an Effort to Protect Constitutional Rights

A participatory society can play an essential role in the prosecution of corruption cases. By providing information on alleged corruption, a participatory community can assist anti-corruption institutions so that corruption as an extraordinary crime can be eradicated as a means of enforcing people's constitutional rights. The authors attempt to perceive things by defending constitutional rights from a societal standpoint, a right of citizens who have had their rights violated by acts of corruption. The method used in this research is a normative legal method that refers to the norms in the laws and regulations, court decisions, and social society. The data used is secondary data obtained from various sources with appropriate and relevant topics so that it becomes chaotic in discussing related problems. The community's active role in uncovering corruption cases is part of the obligation to break the chain of corruption and fulfil citizens' rights to enforce the law. The amount of budget allocated for disclosing corruption cases is leading the government to protect citizens' constitutional rights from the threat of corruption. Although the handling is still considered unsuccessful because many cases have not been revealed, the efforts made deserve to be recognised.

The Relevance of Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2020 in Efforts of State Losses Refund through Restorative Justice

The government has moved quickly to find a legal breakthrough related to reducing corruption in Indonesia. One of the efforts made by the government is through the Supreme Court to eradicate corruption is the enactment of Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2020 concerning Guidelines for the Criminalization of Articles 2 and 3 of the Law on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes. The consideration is that the imposition of a crime must be carried out with due regard for the certainty and proportionality of punishment to realize justice based on Pancasila and the Republic of Indonesia's 1945 Constitution. The objectives of the Supreme Court Regulation prioritize victim’s losses to be recovered. Moreover, the regulation proportional benefits in imposing penalties on criminal cases is compatible with the Restorative Justice approach. The restorative justice process is expected to be a legal breakthrough in restoring state finances, with dealing with Criminal Corruption Cases focusing on efforts to restore state finances as a whole rather than just prosecuting the perpetrators. Thus, the purpose of this research is to determine how relevant Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2020 are to efforts to recover state losses through restorative justice. This research employs both a normative and an empirical legal approach. Data were gathered through literature reviews and field studies and analyzed qualitatively. The present study confirmed the author's thoughts about the relevancies of Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2020 to recover state losses through restorative justice as Supreme Court Regulation No. 1 of 2020 play a role as a law enforcement's main element as a legal substance.

The Environment and Forestry Investigators’ Authority in Money Laundering Offenses

Investigators from the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan/ KLHK) are not authorized to investigate the crime of money laundering in the elucidation of Article 74 of Law No. 8 of 2010, although they are authorized to investigate the crime of origin. However, the controversy over the interpretation of Article 74 of the Money Laundering Law was resolved by the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 15/PUU-XIX/2021, which expands the meaning of 'predicate criminal investigator' in the provisions of Article 74 of the Money Laundering Law to become 'an official or agency authorized by legislation to carry out an investigation.' This paper attempts to describe the dynamics of the authority of KLHK investigators in investigating money laundering offences before and after the pronouncement of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 15/PUU-XIX/2021, including the matter of legal harmonization in the Money Laundering Law relating to the authority to investigate money laundering. This research is normative research with a conceptual approach, a statute approach, and a historical approach. Through this paper, this research can convey that before the Constitutional Court's Decision Number 15/PUU-XIX/2021, KLHK investigators were not authorized to investigate the crime of money laundering, and several legal disharmonies arose regarding the regulation of the authority to investigate money laundering. Meanwhile, after the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 15/PUU-XIX/2021, all investigators authorized to investigate predicate crimes of money laundering offences, among other things, investigators of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, are ex officio authorized to investigate money laundering offences. Furthermore, KLHK investigators are authorized to investigate money laundering offences against environmental and forestry crimes whose tempus delicti is before the pronouncement of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 15/PUU-XIX/2021.

Reformulation of Institutional Relationship between the People’s Representative Council and the Corruption Eradication Commission

This study aims to reformulate the institutional relationships between legislative bodies and independent state institutions, by taking case studies of the House of Representatives (DPR) and the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). This research was conducted with a normative method using a conceptual and statutory approach. The results showed that the DPR-KPK institutional relationship can be formulated into authority relationship, supervisory relationship and financial relationship. In terms of the authority relationship, the principal-agent approach is used to place DPR as the principal whose duty is to support and provides the resources needed for the KPK as its agent. In this context, the KPK is the recipient of the task whose authority is within the subject of DPR. For the Supervision Relationship, The New Public Management Model (NPM) is used to initiate better supervision through the input and output control mechanism. Input control is carried out by DPR through the legislation and commisoner selection process, while output control is carried out based on accountability reports made by KPK. Thus, DPR is not allowed to intervene while the KPK exercise its duty. In terms of financial relationship, the DPR can regulate funding aspects for KPK through financial legislation. However, this budget politics must be adjusted to the needs and workload in carrying out KPK duties.

Authority in Handling Criminal Actions Conducted by Law Enforcers

The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) was not born. However, the handling of criminal acts of corruption is still not maximal, such as the facts found in the field that currently the eradication of corruption is carried out by the prosecutor's office and the police. The purpose of this research is how the authority regulates corruption in Indonesia and corruption crimes committed by law enforcers. This study uses a normative juridical research method in the form of a literature study, and then the data obtained is descriptive qualitative. The results show that the police carry out the criminal act of corruption in Indonesia as the institution that carries out investigations and investigations, the Attorney General's Office as the institution that carries out the prosecution, and the Corruption Eradication Commission as supervision, which sometimes acts directly as an investigator, investigator, and prosecutor in certain cases. Handling criminal acts of corruption by law enforcers who are tasked with assisting the Corruption Eradication Commission following Article 11 paragraph (1) letter a and Law Number 19 of 2019 concerning the Second Amendment to Law Number 30 of 2002 the Corruption Eradication Commission.

Law Enforcement towards Arrest by Hand Operation in the Prosecutor’s Office of Lampung Province

The purpose of this research is to find out the results of law enforcement activities between the North Lampung District Attorney and the Kepahiang District Attorney and to find out whether the North Lampung District Attorney and the Kepahiang District Prosecutor's Office have fulfilled the principle of legal certainty in the activity of catching the hands of suspected criminal acts committed by non-governmental organizations. This research method uses normative and empirical approaches, namely normative research, which examines laws and theories. The empirical approach is made by looking at the facts and studying the law in the field. The results of the research on arrest activities carried out by the North Lampung District Prosecutor's Office, and the Kepahiang District Prosecutors' Office were carried out based on an order from the respective head of the state prosecutor's office, both the intelligence team and the joint team based on the order of the head of the state prosecutor's office. The difference between the results of law enforcement on the activities of the Attorney General's Office for Handling the arrest of the hands of the North Lampung Police was because the alleged criminal act was a general crime based on the money handed over to the victim, in contrast to the Kepahiang Prosecutor's Office which stated that the criminal act of corruption was due to the villages’ financial (Dana Desa) losses where there are proven state losses. The North Lampung District Prosecutor's Office and the Kepahiang District Prosecutor's Office have legal certainty in the activity of catching hands against non-governmental organizations who are suspected of committing a criminal act. However, the results of these activities are different.

The Funcitonalization of in Absentia Court as a Form of Corruption Crime’s Asset Recovery

Examination of corruption cases in the absence of the defendant at trial still has many obstacles. The elucidation of Law Number 31 of 1999 as amended in Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning eradicating criminal acts of corruption, especially in Article 38, provides an opening for the judiciary in absentia as an orientation to save state assets. What is the importance of the judiciary in absentia as an effort to recover assets, how is the implementation of justice in absentia to recover assets? What is the basis for the judges' legal considerations on the implementation of the trial? Then this study uses a normative research method with a normative juridical approach, while this type of research is descriptive. Based on the discussion in the study that the importance of the in absentia judiciary as an effort to recover assets carried out by the defendant legally and appropriately summoned to eradicate the crime of corruption and recover state losses can still be implemented, the assets and all assets of the defendant based on the verdict are proven to be related to corruption. A criminal act of corruption can then be executed. The implementation of the judiciary in absentia is an effort to recover assets through a legal process by taking into account the defendant's rights. The judiciary without the presence of the defendant is guided by Law Number 31 of 1999 as amended in Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning the eradication of criminal acts of corruption in Article 38 paragraph (1). The basis for the Judge's legal considerations regarding the trial examination in the defendant's absence is to ensure legal certainty so that the prosecutor as the executor can save the country's assets with considerations of exceptionality, return, and rescue of state assets.