PERTANGGUNG JAWABAN PIDANA PEJABAT ADMINISTRASI NEGARA YANG TIDAK MEMPEROLEH KEUNTUNGAN DALAM TERJADINYA TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI (Studi Kasus No.12/Pid.sus-TPK/2018/PN.PGP)

Abstract

The rampant criminal acts of corruption in Indonesia are not only detrimental to State
finances, but have been a violation of the social and economic rights of the community at large. corruption
is no longer a national problem, but has become a transnational phenomenon so that international
cooperation becomes essential in preventing and eradicating it. unusual efforts are needed, but
extraordinary efforts in the handling and eradication of criminal acts of corruption. One of the efforts that
can avoid the deterioration of Indonesia due to corruption is to make efforts to seize and return to assets
resulting from criminal acts of corruption that are based on legislation in force in the Indonesian positive
legal system. However, many state administration officials were caught in corruption cases because they
misused the authorities that were in them. The limits of this authority should be more clearly formulated, so
that what kind of authority can be said to violate the authority in Administrative Law, and violation of
authority as what is said to be a violation of the Corruption Crime authority. Based on this exaggeration,
the author identifies two formulations of the problem, First What is the criminal responsibility of state
Administration officials who do not benefit from the occurrence of criminal acts of corruption. Second, how
is the judge's judgment in deciding the case of corruption.
This type of research can be classified in normative juridical research, because this research is
conducted by examining secondary data and approaches to law, this normative research examines the
principles of legal principles of law. The data sources used are, primary data, secondary data, tertiary data,
data collection techniques in this study are normative juridical, the data used is library research.
Based on the results of the research and the problems in this study is the criminal responsibility for
cases of corruption in the distribution of rotating funds LPDB-KUMKM which was decided by the panel of
judges against the defendant in favor of the maharta in accordance with Article 3 of Law no. 31 of 1999
concerning Corruption Crime jo Law no. 20 of 2001 concerning Amendments to Law Number 31 of 1999
concerning Eradication of Corruption Crime, namely the existence of an element of abuse of authority from
the perpetrators, in addition to the absence of forgiving reasons as justification. As for the judges'
consideration in imposing criminal sanctions on perpetrators due to legal factors, the loss of state finances,
to which the defendant committed corruption and the elements contained in the indictment of the public
prosecutor.
Keywords: Corruption, Criminal Accountability