Era of Proving Elements Harmful to the State’s Economy in Corruption Offenses

WRITER Interest in discussing this topic is encouraged because based on observations in the practice of prosecutions and trials of perpetrators of criminal acts of corruption, very few corruption cases have been found that have been found guilty by the court because they harmed the country’s economy. What is common is a guilty verdict for a criminal act of corruption that is detrimental to state finances. State losses from criminal acts of corruption are generally only interpreted as state financial losses, while state economic losses are ignored.

Since the enactment of Law Number 3 of 1971 concerning the Eradication of Corruption Crimes, it appears that the editorial element of “State Economy” has been legalized in it. This can be seen in Chapter I General Provisions Article 1, namely “being punished for a criminal act of corruption is: (1) a. Any person who unlawfully commits an act of enriching himself or another person, or an entity, which directly or indirectly harms the state’s finances and/or the state’s economy, or he knows or reasonably suspects that this act is detrimental to the state’s finances or the state’s economy.”

Then there was a legal reform so that Law Number 31 of 1999 was born and this was followed by Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Corruption. Even though there have been updates several times, it appears that the element “harming the country’s economy” has not been removed from the formulation of the article. These elements are contained in Article 2 and Article 3 which still prioritize state financial losses or state economic losses.

So it seems as if this pair of elements is a true and eternal pair. According to the legislators in their explanation, state finances are all state assets in whatever form separated or not separated, including all parts of state assets and all rights and obligations arising from:
a. Being under the control, management and responsibility of national officials both at the central and regional level and
b. It is under the management and accountability of State-Owned Enterprises/Regional-Owned Enterprises, foundations, legal entities and companies that include third party capital based on an agreement with the state.

From the context above, “harmful” actions can simply be stated as actions that result in loss or reduction, so that the element “harmful to state finances” is defined as a loss of state finances or a reduction in state finances.

The state economy in the explanation of Law Number 31 of 1999 is economic life which is structured as a joint effort based on the principle of kinship or an independent community business which is based on government policy both at the central and regional levels in accordance with the provisions of the applicable laws and regulations aimed at provide benefits, prosperity and well-being to all people’s lives. The country’s economy also includes independent community businesses which are based on government policies in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The government’s role in the economy is classified into four activities, namely allocation of production sectors as well as goods and services to fulfill community satisfaction, distribution of income/income transfer, stabilization of the economy through efforts to combine monetary policy and fiscal policy and others, acceleration of economic growth.

In judicial practice, it is relatively difficult to prove elements that are detrimental to the country’s economy. As far as the author knows, there are references to decisions regarding elements detrimental to the state’s economy as in the Supreme Court Decision Number 1164K/Pid/1985 dated 31 October 1986 in the case of Toni Gozal alias Go Tiong Kien where the Panel of Judges concluded that the defendant’s actions were building without rights/without permission. authorities in the state’s territorial waters so that as a result of their actions the state cannot utilize and use some of the Ujung Pandang (currently Makassar) territorial waters for public purposes, which is an act that is detrimental to the state’s economy. The legal considerations of the Supreme Court a quo state that:
“The defendant’s actions are against the law, because he built on it without the right/without permission from the authorities. As a result of his actions, part of the water area of ​​Ujung Pandang Harbor can no longer be used for public purposes. “That these waters belong to the state, so that the defendant’s use thereof is clearly detrimental to the state’s economy.”

In early 2018, prosecutors at the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) charged Nur Alam (NA), the former Governor of Southeast Sulawesi, with abusing his authority in issuing a Nickel Mining Business Permit (IUP) to PT Anugrah Harisma Barakah (PT AHB) on Kabaena Island. , Southeast Sulawesi. In his demands, the KPK Public Prosecutor accumulated losses suffered by the state as a result of NA’s actions with a total of IDR 4.2 trillion, consisting of material state financial losses which have been proven by an investigative audit from BPKP amounting to IDR 1.5 trillion, accumulated with non-material losses, namely environmental economic losses consisting of ecological, economic aspects and environmental rehabilitation costs totaling IDR 2.7 trillion.

Moving on from this case, we seem to be reminded that the elements of state loss in criminal acts of corruption are not only limited to financial losses, but also losses to the state’s economy, which in this case the public prosecutor included calculations of environmental losses and even the costs of restoring the damage. The calculation of environmental economic losses was carried out by environmental damage experts from the Bogor Agricultural Institute (IPB). Considering the extraordinary impact of state economic losses, law enforcers must begin to interpret state losses not only as state financial losses but also state economic losses as a manifestation of the state’s spirit to eradicate corruption.