Abstract
This study analyzed the system of evidence of corruption related to evidence and the quantity of evidence in cases of corruption. The researchers used a descriptive qualitative approach that grouped and selected data obtained from field research according to its quality and truth, then related to theories, principles and legal norms obtained from library studies. The data was analyzed qualitatively by processing existing legal materials to answer the main research problem. The results of the study stated that the evidence in the crimes act of corruption consisted of at least two, namely negative and absolute (pure proof). In this negative verification, the construction of article 183 of the Criminal Procedure Code is used. The legal norm emphasizes the burden of proving criminal offenses to the public prosecutor. This is in line with the principle of the actori incumbit onus probandi, which means who demands, he proves. Meanwhile, regarding the types of evidence that are valid and may be used to prove what has been determined in article 184 paragraph one of the Criminal Procedure Code, are witness statements, expert statements, letters, instructions, and statements of the defendant.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
