Sumarja, FX and Dewi, Erna (2024) Comparative Juridical Analysis of Indonesian and Malaysian Prosecutor's Authority in Handling Cases Crime Corruption. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding (IJMMU), 11 (1). pp. 442-455. ISSN 2364-5369

Text 5357 - Published Version Download (39kB)

Abstract

There is a difference in authority between the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Indonesia and the Prosecutor's Office of Malaysia in handling criminal acts of corruption, where prosecutors in Indonesia must temporarily resign from their positions in the Prosecutor's Office while handling criminal acts of corruption, apart from that, in handling criminal acts of corruption, prosecutors work based on orders and act for and on behalf of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). The formulation of the problem in this research is what is the Authority of the Prosecutors of the Republic of Indonesia and Malaysia in Handling Corruption Crime Cases? What are the similarities and differences between the authority of the Indonesian prosecutor's office and the authority of the Malaysian prosecutor's office in handling corruption cases? What are the causes and reasons for the similarities and differences between the authority of the Indonesian prosecutor's office and the authority of the Malaysian prosecutor's office in handling corruption cases? The method used is descriptive qualitative. The results of this research are that the authority of the Republic of Indonesia Prosecutor's Office and the Malaysian Prosecutor's Office in eradicating criminal acts of corruption is in accordance with Law Number 30 of 2002 concerning the Corruption Eradication Commission and the Malaysian Corruption Prevention Commission (SPRM) Act 2009. Similarities and differences between the Indonesian Prosecutor's Office and the Malaysian Prosecutor's Office in prosecuting criminal acts of corruption, refer to Article 51 Paragraph (3) of Law Number 30 of 2002 concerning the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in Indonesia and Article 60 Paragraph (2) of the Malaysian Corruption Prevention Commission (SPRM) Deed in Malaysia. The authority given to the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Indonesia and the Prosecutor's Office of Malaysia differs in the role of the Prosecutor's Office in eradicating corruption. In eradicating corruption, the role of the Indonesian Prosecutor's Office is as an investigator and prosecutor, this authority is given by the conditions in Article 39 Paragraph (3), whereas in Malaysia, which is the Malaysian Corruption Prevention Commission (SPRM), it can become a public prosecutor on or with permission from the Public Prosecutor, if if permission is not given, then the prosecutor himself remains the public prosecutor as explained in Article 60 Paragraph (2) so this cannot be disputed and is absolute.

Item Type:	Article
Subjects:	K Law > K Law (General)
Divisions:	Fakultas Hukum (FH) > Prodi Ilmu Hukum
Depositing User:	Sumarja FX sumarja
Date Deposited:	28 Feb 2024 08:52
Last Modified:	28 Feb 2024 08:52
URI:	http://repository.lppm.unila.ac.id/id/eprint/53192

Actions (login required)

View Item