Efektivitas Kejaksaan Dalam Pengembalian Kerugian Negara Akibat Tindak Pidana Korupsi

Abstract

Penelitian bertujuan untuk mengetahui efektivitas kejaksaan dalam upaya pengembalian kerugian negara akibat tindak pidana korupsi, dan faktor yang menghambat kejaksaan dalam upaya pengembalian kerugian negara akibat tindak pidana korupsi.Tipe penelitian ini adalah yuridis empiris. Hasil Penelitian penulis mendapatkan bahwa: Efektivitas kejaksaan dalam upaya pengembalian kerugian negara akibat tindak pidana korupsi belum efektif. Hal ini dikarenakan dalam penegakan hukum terhadap pelaku tindak pidana korupsi dalam rangka pengembalian kerugian negara ditemukan hambatan yakni, hambatan kultural bersumber dari kebiasaan negatif yang berkembang di masyarakat serta hambatan instrumental dalam bentuk peraturan perundang-undangan yang membuat penanganan tindak pidana korupsi tidak berjalan sebagaimana mestinya. Hukuman yang diterapkan hanya sebatas hukuman badan dan pengembalian kerugian negara sehingga tidak membuat pelaku tindak pidana korupsi tidak berkurang. Faktor yang menghambat kejaksaan dalam upaya pengembalian kerugian negara akibat tindak pidana korupsi antara lain: Minimnya saksi yang mendukung pembuktian perkara korupsi, Keterbatasan sarana dan prasarana, Penghitungan kerugian negara.
 This study aims to determine the effectiveness of the prosecutor's office in an effort to recover state losses due to corruption, and the factors that hinder the prosecutor's office in trying to recover state losses due to corruption. The type of this research is juridical empirical. The results of the authors' research found that: The effectiveness of the prosecutor's office in recovering state losses due to corruption has not been effective. This is because in law enforcement against perpetrators of criminal acts of corruption in the context of recovering state losses, obstacles are found, namely, cultural barriers that arise from negative habits that develop in society as well as instrumental obstacles in the form of laws and regulations that make the handling of corruption crimes not run properly. The punishments that are applied are limited to corporal punishment and the return of state losses so that it does not reduce the perpetrators of corruption. Factors that hinder the prosecutor's office in efforts to recover state losses due to criminal acts of corruption include: The lack of witnesses who support proof of corruption cases, Limited facilities and infrastructure, Calculation of state losses.

E-Procurement in the Procurement System for Goods/Services by the Government in Indonesia: Perspective of Saddu al-Dhariah

“…Another crucial aspect of law enforcement is the ability of the prosecutor's office to recover state losses caused by corruption. 82 One form of saddu al-dhariah in regulation is the existence of Law No. 5 of 1999 concerning the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition, which defines unfair business competition as competition between business actors in conducting production and/or marketing activities of goods and/or services done dishonestly or unlawfully or obstructing fair business competition.…”

The Differences between the Attorney General and The Corruption Eradication Commission in Prosecuting Corruption Cases in Indonesia: A Legal Analysis

“…The Corruption Eradication Committee has the authority to investigate, prosecute and try corruption cases involving public officials and other related parties (Kindangen, 2021). The Corruption Eradication Commission also has the power to investigate and return assets suspected of originating from acts of corruption (Siswandi, Sampara, & Badaru, 2020). In this case, the Corruption Eradication Commission has a sharper focus in prosecuting corruption cases and has greater power in investigating and returning assets associated with corrupt practices.…”

“…The Corruption Eradication Committee (KPK) has a leadership consisting of the head of the institution and the head of the investigator (Kindangen, 2021). The Corruption Eradication Commission also has a more specific working mechanism, including the use of a team of investigators and a team of prosecutors who are specially trained in handling corruption cases (Siswandi et al, 2020).…”