Antoni, Antoni (2024) Implementasi Perjanjian Kerjasama Kemendagri dengan Kejagung dan Polri Dalam Penanganan Indikasi Tindak Pidana Korupsi Di Kabupaten Kep. Anambas. Masters thesis, Universitas Islam Riau.

Text 221022240.pdf - Submitted Version Restricted to Registered users only Download (5MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

The background of the Cooperation between the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Attorney General's Office and the National Police in Handling Indications of Corruption Crimes, where each party has authority in terms of handling reports or complaints of the public in relation to indications of corruption crimes. The type of research used is the Empirical Juridis, which puts research into a system of norm rules that is in effect and also authors conduct observational research or observational research by means of surveys. i.e. the researcher directly conducts research on the research site to obtain the necessary data. The research results show in the MoU or Cooperation Agreement (PKS) of the Ministry of Home Affairs with the Law Enforcement Officials (Police and Prosecutor) Number: 119-49 of 2018, B-369/F/FJP/02/2018, B/9/II/2018 concerning Coordination in Handling Reports or Complaints of People Indicating Crime, explained that the police is a state tool that plays a role in maintaining public security and order (Kamtibmas), law enforcement, providing protection, guidance, and service to the community. So that where the Mou or Cooperation Agreement (PKS) of the Ministry of Home Affairs is the police can act according to their authority. As a form of implementation of the MoU, the Kep Police Criminal Investigation Unit followed up the case of complaint reports or information about alleged corruption. Anambas and arrived at the Corruption Court and the perpetrators of 2 village officials have been proven to have committed acts of Corruption and have been decided by the Court. That is what hinders the implementation of Mou Number: 119-49 of 2018, B369/F/FJP/02/2018, B/9/II/2018 of 2018. First, the APIP never coordinated with law enforcement officials. Second, insufficient human resources and not maximizing the efficient performance of supervision in following up on the report or complaint. Third, the slow performance of state financial loss calculation by APIP or BPKP. Fourth, the slow results of the Audit process conducted are almost 4 months from the Audit by APIP and BPKP. Then the solution to the inhibitory factor is, First, APIP must follow the rules that are its guidelines in carrying out the Second Audit, imposing legal sanctions if APIP, Third, APIP must increase capacity and professionalism and have high integrity of law enforcement agencies such as the prosecutor's office and the police to process corruption perpetrators and impose strict sanctions. Fourth, so that there are no forms of rules that conflict with the Law that regulates corruption that can lead to the perpetrators' loopholes to take refuge in these rules.

Actions (login required)

View Item