'International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding (IJMMU)'
Doi
Abstract
Indonesia Regulation Authority of the State Prosecutor's Office in Efforts to Restore State Financial Losses Due to Corruption Crimes. Corruption in Indonesia causes huge financial losses to the state. The replacement money regulated in Article 18 of the Indonesia Corruption Eradication Law as one of the additional crimes still leaves problems. This is because if the corrupt convict does not return the replacement money, the convict may be subject to a subsidiary prison sentence whose sentence does not exceed the principal sentence. However, Article 64 paragraph (2) of the Indonesia State Treasury Law states that criminal decisions do not exempt from demands for compensation. Therefore, the replacement money that has not been or is not paid by the corruption convict is still the state's financial receivables. The author sees that there is a limitation in the authority of the state’s attorney (the State Prosecutor) in an effort to recover state financial losses due to corruption due to conflict with the provisions in Article 18 paragraph (3) of the Law on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes with Article 64 paragraph (2) of the State Treasury Law. This paper is normative juridical research with a statutory approach, a conceptual approach, and a case approach. The results of this study are the existence of misconceptions in the limited authority of state attorneys in an effort to recover state financial losses due to criminal acts of internal corruption. This has implications for the accumulation of state financial losses in the form of replacement money that is not returned by the convict and becomes state financial receivables. Thus, it is necessary to strengthen the authority of state attorneys through the seizure of assets resulting from criminal acts of corruption through civil proceedings (civil procedure)
