Abstract
Based on the result of the research and a discussion to the main problem that proposed, therefore we can make some conclusion: The effectivity of State attorney On The Refund of State/Region Monetary Due To Corruption Act In The State Attorney Office Purwokerto, which purpose is to return the loss of state fund or state economy due to corruption act, if we review it from the effectivity of State attorney as one of the state instrument to return the state/region economy as a result of corruption act by using UU No 3 Tahun 1971 about Eradication of Corruption Act In The State Attorney Office Purwokerto , we can say that it hasn’t effective yet, due to Litigation process handled by State attorney which filed civil action to the District Court, no one is capable to pay the loss of state/region due to corruption act in civil ruling, because the defendent already has no possession. Then, on Non Litigation way, using State attorney instrument , a little bit effective even though has to pay replacement money by credit because the defend a n t is capable to pay off the replacement. If we use UU No 31 Tahun 1999 that has been changed and replaced to UU No 20 Tahun 2001 about the Changes on UU No 31 Tahun 1999 about Erradication of Corruption Act to a State Attorney, it won’t be a problem because if the defendant is not capable of paying the replacement money based on the decision, the defendant will undergo the subsidiary criminal in the form of penalty, which is the period of time will not exceed the main criminal threat dan the period of time has already decided on the decision. That factors become obstacles, is the State Attorney will not able to perform a sequest sizing because the defendant is unable and has no possession in a nominal of money being corrupted, then from the Law enforcer itself, that the State Attorney is having difficulties to track posession that belongs to the defendant which is gain from the corruption act or assume gained from the corruption act, while the obstacles from the society, there is a lack of awareness from the society itself, which is a lack of concern to give information earlier and detail on the possession belong to the defendant to the law enforcer to a person a suspected as a corruption perpetrators.
Highlights
That factors become obstacles, is the State Attorney will not able to perform a sequest sizing because the defendant is unable and has no possession in a nominal of money being corrupted, from the Law enforcer itself, that the State Attorney is having difficulties to track posession that belongs to the defendant which is gain from the corruption act or assume gained from the corruption act, while the obstacles from the society, there is a lack of awareness from the society itself, which is a lack of concern to give information earlier and detail on the possession belong to the defendant to the law enforcer to a person a suspected as a corruption perpetrators
Based on the result of the research and a discussion to the main problem that proposed, therefore we can make some conclusion: The effectivity of State attorney On The Refund of State/Region Monetary Due To Corruption Act In The State Attorney Office Purwokerto, which purpose is to return the loss of state fund or state economy due to corruption act, if we review it from the effectivity of State attorney as one of the state instrument to return the state/region economy as a result of corruption act by using UU No 3 Tahun 1971 about Eradication of Corruption Act In The State Attorney Office Purwokerto, we can say that it hasn’t effective yet, due to Litigation process handled by State attorney which filed civil action to the District Court, no one is capable to pay the loss of state/region due to corruption act in civil ruling, because the defendent already has no possession
2. Ditingkatkan kesadaran hukum masyarakat dalam mendukung dan berperan dalam penegakan pemberantasan korupsi termasuk memberikan informasi secara objektif terhadap harta benda yang diperoleh Terpidana dari hasil korupsinya
Summary
Tindak Pidana Korupsi di Indonesia menjadi masalah yang sudah meluas di masyarakat, perkembangannya terus meningkat dari tahun ke tahun baik dari kuantitas perkara yang terjadi dan kuantitas kerugian keuangan Negara maupun dari segi kualitas Tindak Pidana yang dilakukan semakin sistematis serta lingkupnya yang memasuki aspek kehidupan masyarakat. Hal ini sesuai dengan Pasal 30 ayat (2) UU Nomor 16 tahun 2004 tentang Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia yang menyebutkan bahwa di bidang Perdata dan Tata Usaha Negara, Kejaksaan dengan Kuasa Khusus dapat bertindak baik di dalam maupun di luar pengadilan untuk dan atas nama negara atau pemerintah. Berkaitan dengan pemulihan atau pengembalian keuangan negara sebagai akibat dari Tindak Pidana Korupsi tersebut maka Kejaksaan sebagai satu-satunya alat pemerintah dalam bidang penuntutan juga mempunyai kewenangan untuk bertindak dalam hal pengembalian keuangan Negara sebagai akibat dari perbuatan korupsi dan hal ini dipertegas dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 16 Tahun 2004 tentang Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia pasal 30 ayat (2) yang menyatakan: Dibidang Perdata dan Tata Usaha Negara, Kejaksaan dengan kuasa khusus dapat bertindak baik didalam maupun diluar Pengadilan untuk dan atas nama Negara atau pemerintah. Bahwa di Kejaksaan Negeri Purwokerto antara tahun 2010 sampai 2011 terdapat data penyelesaian pemulihan keuangan Negara atau daerah sebagai akibat Tindak Pidana Korupsi baik melalui Litigasi maupun Non Litigasi
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
