Law Number 3 Of 1971

Original Language Title: Undang-Undang Nomor 3 Tahun 1971

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now

Read the untranslated law here: http://peraturan.go.id/inc/view/11e44c4e3f6d9980914e313231323438.html

ACT 3-1971 Text copy _?.
Back COUNTRY SHEET Republic of INDONESIA No. 19, 1971TINDAK of CRIMINAL corruption. Eradication. (Additional explanation in the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 2958)
Law of the Republic of INDONESIA number 3 of 1971 on the ERADICATION OF CRIMINAL ACTS of CORRUPTION by the GRACE of GOD ALMIGHTY the PRESIDENT of the REPUBLIC of INDONESIA,.,, Considering: a. that the acts of corruption is very detrimental to the financial/economy of the country and hindering national development;
.,, b. that law No. 24 Prp. 1960 about an investigation, Prosecution and examination criminal acts of Corruption in relation to the development of society lacking sufficient to be able to achieve the expected results, and therefore the laws need to be replaced;
.,, Considering: 1. article-article 5 paragraph (1), subsection 20 (1) and article 24 of the Constitution of 1945;
., ,2. Act No. 13 of 1961 concerning the provisions of principal State police;
., ,3. Act No. 15 of 1961 concerning the provisions of principal State Attorney of the Republic of Indonesia;
., ,4. Act No. 14 of 1967 on Banking issues;
., ,5. Act No. 18 of 1961 concerning the provisions of principal Personnel;
With the approval of the House of representatives Mutual DECIDED: i. Revoke: Act No. 24 Prp. in 1960.

II. Setting: the law on the eradication of criminal acts of corruption.

CHAPTER I GENERAL PROVISIONS.

Article 1 was convicted of the criminal offence of corruption is:.,, a. (1) Whoever unlawfully with doing deeds enrich yourself or another person, or an agency, which directly or indirectly detrimental to the country's finance and economy of the country or, or known or ought to be suspected by him that such a feat of financial harm the country or economy of the country;
.,,.,, b. whoever with the intention of benefit yourself or others or an agency, abusing authority, opportunity or means of him because of the position or the position, which directly or indirectly can be detrimental to the finances of the State or the economy of the country;
.,, c. whoever committed a crime listed in articles 209, 210, 387, 388, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 423, 435 and K.U.H.P.
.,, d. whoever gives a gift or pledge to the civil servants as referred to in article 2 by considering the power or something authority inherent in the Office or position or by sipemberi gift or promise is considered attached to the position or that position;
.,, e. whoever without a reasonable excuse, in the shortest-in short after receive the gift or promise given to him, as in articles 418, 419 and 420 K.U.H.P. did not report the granting or promise to the authorities.
.,, (2) Whoever experimenting or conspiracy to commit a criminal offence-a criminal offence mentioned in subsection (1) a, b, c, d, e of the present article.
Article 2 of the public servants in question by this law, including those who receive salary or wages of the finances of the State or region or who receive a salary or wages of an agency/legal entities that receive financial assistance from the State or County, or other legal entity who use capital and allowances-leniency from the State or society.

CHAPTER II.

ABOUT The INVESTIGATION And PROSECUTION Of CRIMINAL ACTS Of Corruption.

Article 3 the investigation and prosecution of criminal acts of corruption to be run according to the provisions in force, merely not specified in this Act.

Article 4 corruption Matters should take precedence of other matters to be submitted to the Court in order to be examined and resolved in the shortest-in a nutshell.

Article 5 the investigator obliged by its own initiative take any action deemed necessary for the investigation, soon after he received reports or allegations arising from lawful investigators about the existence of the crime of corruption.

Article 6 Every suspect is obligated to give a description of the entire harta-bendanya and harta-benda of the wife/husband, children and every person and entity that is known or suspected by him has a relationship with the matter concerned when requested by investigators.

Chapter 7.,, (1) except for Dad, mom, Grandma, Grandpa, siblings, wife/husband, grandson of a suspect, then any person obliged to give information according to his knowledge as a witness or expert to the investigators in the case in question.
.,, (2) a person exempted from giving information such as witness under subsection (1) of this article, can be examined as a witness when the suspects allowed, and one's own will.
., (3), Though without the consent of the suspect, the person under subsection (2) of this article, may be allowed by the investigator to provide information.
Article 8 obligation of giving testimony that referred to in article 7 of this Act, applies also to those which, according to the provisions of applicable law must keep secret his knowledge in relation to the dignity of the Office or his work, unless the officer religion.

Article 9.,, (1) by not reducing the provisions applicable laws regarding confidential Bank referred to Article 37 paragraph (2) of the law on Banking issues, then in the case of corruption at the request of the Attorney General, the Financial Secretary can give permission to the Prosecutor to ask for information to the Bank about the financial circumstances of the suspect.
.,, (2) with the permission of the Minister of finance as such under subsection (1), a mandatory Bank shows the letters of the Bank, and provide information about the financial state of the suspect.
.,, (3) the provisions regarding the details in both subsection (1) and (2) above, it must be given within a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of the request for a permit by the Minister of finance.
Article 10 in the preliminary examination of witnesses are prohibited from mentioning the name/address or anything else that gives the possibility of can he knew reporters.

Section 11.,, (1) to smooth and keseksamaan proceedings is concerned, the investigator may at any time ask the suspect and everyone who had anything to do with these things to show him all the letters and other items deemed necessary for examination and investigators can menyitanya.
.,, (2) those that according to the provisions of the law must keep secret his knowledge in relation to dignity, Office or his job can't resist to show letters or letters or letters referred to in paragraph (1) of this article unless the officer religion.
Article 12 the investigator has the right to open, inspect and seize papers and submissions-submissions through the body of the post, telecommunications and others suspected of having links with criminal cases of corruption that were being examined.

Article 13.,, (1) the investigating authorities any time enter any place which he perceived need in conjunction with pemeriksaa, and if the circumstances demand it, aided by instruments of State power.
.,, (2) in case the occupant of a House refused to enter his home, investigators can only enter together of two witnesses. 2 X 24 hours of infusion of the House made the news shows and a tembusannya presented to the residents concerned for their significance.
.,, (3) the obligation to make the news-events, such as the aforementioned apply also to the pensitaan referred to in article 64 (2) paragraph R.I.B.
CHAPTER III.

EXAMINATION ON THE FACE OF THE COURT.

Article 14 the matter of corruption and was tried by the courts of the country according to law and the law of the applicable Event, just in the Act is not determined otherwise.

Article 15 the accusation made by the formulation of briefly about the alleged deeds with outlining the time and place of the deed was done.

Article 16 When at the beginning of the hearing, the charges could not be reasonably understood by the defendant, then the public prosecutor at the request of the judge is obligated to give more details over the accusation if according to the view of the judge the defendant can be harmed in his defense.

Article 17.,, (1) the judge may allow the defendant for the purposes of examination gives a description of the dedication that he is not guilty of the crime of corruption.
.,, (2) a description of the proof advanced by the accused that he is not guilty as referred to in paragraph (1) can only be dikerkenankan in:.,,.,, a. If the defendant explained in the examination, that his actions were reasonable, according to keinsyafan is not detrimental to the country's economy or finance, or.,, b. If the defendant explained in the examination, that his actions were committed in the interest of the public.
.,, (3) in case the defendant may give a description of proof as referred to in subsection (1), the description is used as at least profitable for him. In such event the public prosecutor still had the authority to give proof of the opposite.
.,, (4) if the accused is not able to give a description of proof as referred to in subsection (1), the description is seen as at least detrimental to him. In such event the Public Prosecutor obliged to give proof that the defendant is guilty of committing criminal acts of corruption.
Article 18.,, (1) any defendant is obliged to give a description of the entire harta-bendanya and harta-benda of the wife/husband, children and every person, as well as the agency that allegedly had a relationship with the matter concerned when requested by the judge.

.,, (2) When the accused is not able to provide a satisfactory description of the court hearing about the source of the wealth that was disproportionate to the income or the source of its wealth and then adding the description can be used to amplify the description of each witness that the defendant had committed the crime of corruption.
Section 19.,, (1) in the examination in advance of Trial witnesses are prohibited from mentioning the name/address or things that give the possibility of can he knew reporters.
.,, (2) when the inspection will begin, the judge gave a warning first to witness about the existence of the prohibition in subsection (1) of this article.
Article 20.,, (1) except for Dad, mom, Grandma, Grandpa, Kinsman and wife/husband and grandson of the defendant, then any person required to provide a description of each, according to his knowledge as a witness or expert to the judge in the case in question.
.,, (2) a person who is exempted from providing information such as witness under subsection (1) of this article can be examined as a witness with the door closed when the accused and the public prosecutor, and allow the people themselves will.
., (3), Though without the consent of the accused and the public prosecutor, the person under subsection (2) of this article may be allowed by a judge to give information beyond the oath with the door closed.
Article 21 if the Judge asks, liabilities testified in article 20 paragraph (1) of this Act, applies also for those, who according to the provisions of applicable law must keep secret his knowledge in relation with dignity, title or his work, unless the officer religion.

Section 22.,, (1) by not reducing the provisions applicable laws regarding confidential Bank referred to Article 37 paragraph (2) of the law on Banking issues, then in the case of corruption at the request of the Supreme Court, the Minister of finance can give permission to a judge to ask for information to the Bank about the financial circumstances of the defendant.
.,, (2) with the permission of the Minister of finance as such under subsection (1), a mandatory Bank shows the letters of the Bank, and provide financial information about the State of the defendant.
.,, (3) the provisions concerning the licensing in both subsection (1) and (2) above must be given within a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of the receipt of a permit by the Minister of finance.
Article 23.,, (1) if the defendant after being called properly is not present in the court hearing without giving a valid reason, then the case shall be examined and decided by the judge without his presence.
.,, (2) When the accused is present at subsequent hearings before the verdict was overthrown, he was obliged to review/hearing being heard and followed.
.,, (3) the Court ruling announced by the clerk of Court/Bulletin Board in the Office of the regional government.
.,, (4) against the Court ruling that dropped without the presence of the defendant, the defendant or his power can advance the appeal.
.,, (5) a. If there is sufficient reason to suspect, that a man who died, before the top subjects there are verdicts be modified again, has conducted a criminal offence of corruption, then judge of the demands of the public prosecutor, with the verdict the Court may decide on deprivation of the goods that have been seized.
.,,.,, b. the conditions in subsection (4) does not apply to the person who died is meant the sub a.
.,, (6) every person concerned can advance letter of objection to the Court who had dropped the ruling referred to subsection (5) within three months following the announcement in paragraph (3).
CHAPTER IV.

ABOUT PROSECUTE MEMBERS Of The ARMED FORCES Of The Republic Of INDONESIA.

Pasal 24.,, (1) investigation, prosecution and examination disidang Court against criminal acts of corruption committed by Members of the armed forces of the Republic of Indonesia under the powers of the Military Courts each conducted by officers as specified in the rules of criminal procedure respectively.
.,, (2) investigation, prosecution and examination of disidang Court, executed according to the applicable criminal procedure unless specified in this Act.
Article 25.,, (1) the criminal acts of Corruption committed by a man who should be tried by a military court in the judicial environment together with the one who should be tried by the courts in the judicial environment General, was tried by the courts in the judicial environment is Common with the exceptions set out in section 22 of the Act No. 14 of 1970 on the provisions of principal Authority of Justice.
.,, (2) in case the matter under subsection (1) of this article was tried by a court within the "Public Trial", then was appointed Judge of the armed forces as judge members.
.,, (3) in case the matter under subsection (1) of this article on trial by a military court in the judicial environment, then was appointed a judge of the Court of Justice in an environment of Public Officers as judges.
Article 26 the Attorney General as the law enforcement and the Supreme Public Prosecutor leading the repressive police task mengkoordineer//justisiel in the investigation of cases of corruption or suspected to contain the instructions have been carried out by a that should be tried by the courts in the judicial environment as well as by a Military that must be tried by the courts in the judicial environment as well as by a Military that must be tried by the courts in the judicial environment.

Article 27 When the Attorney General argued that there was enough reason to litigate the corruption Court in advance then the conditions as set forth in article 10 of law No. 1 Drt. 1958 about the changes to the Act No.6 of 1950 (1950 State Gazette No. 53) which regulates the law of criminal procedure at the Court of the army, are not used.

CHAPTER V.

ABOUT THE CRIMINAL PROVISIONS.

Article 28 Whoever doing criminal acts of corruption referred to article 1 paragraph (1) of subsection a, b, c, d, e and paragraph (2) of this Act, be punished with the penalty of life imprisonment or prison forever 20 years and/or a fine extended 3 0 (thirty) million dollars.

But it can be also additional punishments meted out to Article 34 sub a, b, and c of this Act.

Article 29 Whoever intentionally obstructs, undermines, directly indirectly, investigation, prosecution and examination in advance of the Court against the accused or witnesses in the case of corruption threatened with imprisonment for ever 12 years and/or to a fine extended five million rupiah.

Article 30 anyone who under section 6, 7, 8, 9, 18, 20, 21, and 22 of the Act is obliged to give a description of deliberately not give information or gives information which is incorrect, is liable to a prison sentence for ever 12 years and/or to a fine extended five million rupiah.

Article 31 Witnesses who do not meet the provisions of the said article 10 and 19 of this Act is liable to a prison sentence for ever 3 years and/or a fine extended two (2) million dollars.

Article 32 Violations of article 220, 231, 421, 422, 429 and 430 K.U.H.P. Article in the case of corruption threatened with jail sentence ever: 6 (six) years and/or a fine extended four (4) million dollars.

Article 33 acts is liable to a punishment in Article 28 to with article 32 of this Act is a crime.

Article 34 in addition to the Criminal provisions referred to in K.U.H.P. then as punishment is:.,, a. appropriation items remain or not, which has the shape and has, with which or on which the criminal offence was committed entirely or partially or he with the criminal acts of corruption that, so does the price of the opponent's goods replacing goods that, whether the goods or the price of your opponent belongs to legal system or not;
.,, b. Grabs stuff anyway or not remain that has not and has the stated purpose of the company siterhukum, where the criminal acts of corruption that's done so is opposing price goods replacing goods that, whether the goods or the price that opponents belonging to the siterhukum or not, however, follow the corresponding pidananya with items that can be taken according to the provisions of subsection a of this section.
.,, c. substitute payment totaling as many equal to harta-benda obtained from corruption.
Article 35.,, (1) deprivation of goods not belonging to the siterhukum are not dropped, when the rights of third parties with goodwill will be disturbed.
.,, (2) if in the verdict of the seizure of goods that includes also the goods of third parties who have goodwill, then this may submit their letters of objection against the usurpation of his belongings to the Court concerned, within three months after the judge's announcement.
.,, In that Prosecutors requested caption, but interested parties should also be heard his statement.
CHAPTER VI.

TRANSITIONAL RULES.

Article 36 against any criminal act of corruption has been done before when legislation is applicable, but checked and tried after the Act is applicable then needed laws that apply at the time the criminal offence was committed.

CHAPTER VII.

THE REGULATIONS COVER.

Article 37 of this Act called the legislation the eradication of criminal acts of Corruption in 1971 and entered into force on the day of promulgation.

So that every one can know it, ordered the enactment of this legislation with the placement in the State Gazette of Republic of Indonesia.

.,, Enacted in Jakarta, on March 29, 1971, President of the Republic of Indonesia, SUHARTO'S General T.N.I.
Enacted in Jakarta, on March 29, 1971, the Secretary of State of the Republic of Indonesia, ALAMSJAH Lieutenant General T.N.I.

ADDITIONAL


RI STATE GAZETTE No. 2942 (explanation of the 1971 State Gazette number 19) EXPLANATION of Act No. 3 of 1971 on the ERADICATION OF CRIMINAL ACTS of corruption.


A. GENERAL.

.,, The rule became the basis for the eradication of criminal acts of corruption before this Act in force is law No. 24 Prp. 1960 about an investigation, Prosecution and examination criminal acts of corruption. The provisions of the Act in relation to the development of society, in particular in order to rescue the country's economy and finance for the implementation of the national development program, turned out to be less sufficient to be able to achieve the expected results, and need to be replaced with new laws on corruption eradication that include provisions on investigation, prosecution and examination criminal acts of corruption.
.,, With the formulation of the criminal offence of corruption in Act No. 24 Prp. in 1960, many acts detrimental to the finance and economy of the country as well as the implementation of national development, which according to the feeling of Justice of the community should be prosecuted and are convicted, could not be the formulation are convicted because it requires for the criminal acts of corruption, the existence of a crime or offence committed by the person concerned. In fact a lot of acts detrimental to the finance and economy of the country, not always preceded by a crime or offence.
., The deeds, the true nature of the koruptif can't are convicted under the laws No. 24 Prp. in 1960, hence not included in the formulation of the criminal offence of corruption according to law. To include the works of that kind of formulation of the criminal acts of corruption are formulated in such a way as to include deeds enrich himself or others or an agency that executed "against the law" which directly or indirectly can be detrimental to the country's finances and economy of the country, or are known or ought to be thought that such a feat of financial harm the country or economy of the country. With the suggested means "against the law", which contains the sense of formyl or material, then intended to more easily obtain proof of the Act can be punished, "enrich themselves or others or an agency", on meeting the conditions to prove the existence of the first crime/offence as stipulated by law No. 24 Prp. in 1960.
.,, In addition to the formulation of the criminal acts of corruption which includes the ignoble deeds and adverse financial/economy of the country, then the sense of civil servants in this law as the subject of the crime of corruption, covers not only the sense of civil servants according to the formulation as referred to in article 2, because it is based on experiences during this time, people were not civil servants according to Administrative law sense, by accepting certain duties of a State Agency the Agency, received help from the State, may also perform such despicable deeds.
., Expansion, apart from the formulation of the criminal acts of corruption and the sense of civil servants, as mentioned above, need provisions to simplify and expedite the procedure of proof (investigation, prosecution and examination criminal acts of corruption) from the applicable Law.
., Deviations, it is intended to speed up procedures and facilitate the investigation, prosecution and examination at the hearing, in got the evidence in a criminal corruption that hard he obtained. Although held deviations this does not mean that the human rights of suspects/defendants in criminal acts of corruption are not guaranteed or not protected, but achieved such that deviations that do not constitute deletion entirely human rights suspects/defendants but merely a reduction that had to be done in order to save the danger posed because of corruption. That provision, among others, are as follows:.,, 1. The suspect/accused is obligated to give a description of the entire property and possessions his wife/husband, children and every one, and the Agency suspected of having links with the case in question when asked by investigators/judge (article 6 and 18 paragraph (1).
., ,2. The judge may allow the defendant to provide information on proof that he is not guilty of the crime of corruption. That provision does not reduce the obligation to give the Prosecutor the opportunity/proof of misconduct of the defendant (article 17).
., ,3. a. except a few close family members which includes father, mother, grandmother, brother, sister, wife/husband, children, grandchildren of the suspect/accused persons, every person is obliged to give the description as a witness or expert to investigators or judges (article 7 and 20).
.,,.,, b. Unless the officer religion, then they are according to the provisions of applicable law must keep secret his knowledge in relation to dignity, title, or compulsory work, testified as a witness to the investigator or the judge (article 8 and 21).
.,, c. in the examination in advance of trial witnesses are prohibited from mentioning the name/address or anything else that gives possibility for causing the complainant (article 10 and 19).
., ,4. Investigators at any time authorized to enter any place that needs to be looked at in conjunction with the inspection task (article 13).
., ,5. If the defendant after being called properly is not present in the court hearing without giving a valid reason, then he can be examined and decided by the judge outside of his presence (article 23).
., ,6. Corruption matters should take precedence of other matters to be submitted to the Court in order to be examined and resolved in the shortest-in a nutshell (article 4).
., ,7. Belongings can place deprived and in addition can be sentenced is sentenced to pay money as many number of substitutes equal to the value of property obtained from corruption (article 34).
., ,8. If the defendant is not able to provide information (article 18 paragraph (1)) which satisfy a court hearing about the source of his wealth, then the information can be used to reinforce other witnesses, that the defendant had committed the crime of corruption (article 18).
., ,9. In both the preliminary examination or examination in advance of the trial, witnesses are prohibited from mentioning the name/address or anything else that gives possibility for causing the complainant (article 10 and 19).
.,, In the Act is still followed the principle that criminal acts of corruption committed by the person subject to Judicial environment under the control of the military, solved, prosecuted and examined by the judicial instruments that apply to them (article 24). That provision is still moving in the separation principle means that in cases that are not connection the justisiabel each were tried by a court within the Judiciary itself, i.e. justisiabel instead the military posed before the Public, while the Judicial justisiabel of the military to the presence of the military Judiciary.
In this connection, on the matter of corruption carried out by a Military together with a civilian according to section 55 and 56 K.U.H.P. then in principle the State Court who is authorized to prosecute, with the order of the judge of the military Judiciary and Public Trial.
.,, For the benefit of the Military Judge then checks drawn from the Judiciary has accused top jurisdictie A.B.R.I.. As an exception to this has been regulated in article 22 of Act No. 14 of 1970 on the provisions of principal Authority of Justice. In terms of case corruption was tried by court martial, then the order of the judge of the judiciary is the military and Judiciary.
.,, To achieve satisfactory results in an investigation of corruption, the good things done by a Military and not a Military, then in this Act the Attorney General as the law enforcement and the Supreme Public Prosecutor has the authority to lead and coordinate the investigation against the perpetrator or perpetrators of the civil people-members of the A.B.R.I. then when on the extent of the prosecution of the Attorney General after consultation with the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces argue, that there is sufficient reason to litigate such corruption in the face of the Court , then for the sake of implementation of law enforcement officer's authority, Penyerah Things to not submit the matter to the Court by closing the matter or with finish in disciplinary as regulated in the law No. 1 Drt. 1958 about the changes to the Act No.6 of 1950 on the law of criminal procedure on Judicial Order is not used.

B. EXPLANATION OF THE ARTICLE FOR THE SAKE OF THE ARTICLE.

Section 1.,, criminal acts of corruption generally contains activities that are a manifestation of the Act of corruption in the sense of the wide use of power or influence that attaches to a civil servant or a person belonging to a special position in the Office of the public that are inappropriate or benefit themselves as well as those who bribe so that dikwalifiseer as a criminal act corruption with all its legal consequences associated with the law Pidananya and his show.

Subsection (1), Sub. a..,, this verse does not make tort law as an act that is punishable, unless this is against the law means to do deeds that can be put to "enrich themselves" or "others" or "a body."


The word "enriched themselves" or "others" or "a body" in this paragraph could be linked to article 18 paragraph (2), which gave the obligation to the defendant to provide information about the source of his wealth in such a way, so that the wealth that is not balanced with the addition of the wealth or income, can be used to strengthen the other witnesses that the defendant had committed the crime of corruption. Financial state as stipulated by this law includes also financial region or an agency/legal entities that use capital or allowances allowances from the State-or community with funds obtained from the society for the benefit of social, humanitarian and others.

Do not include "financial state" in this law is the body of the financial/legal entities that are wholly obtained from private capital for example P.T., Firma, c. v. and others.

What is meant by deeds that can be detrimental to the economy of the country is criminal offences against the regulations issued by the Government in its field as stipulated in the Ordinance of the MPRS No. XXIII/MPRS/1966. Sub. b..,, this is a criminal act of corruption as a criminal deed "abuse of authority" that he gained because of his post, all of which it resembles the element in article 52 which in addition K.U.H.P. from it contains elements that "directly or indirectly can be detrimental to the finances of the State" as well as with the purpose of "benefit yourself or others or an agency."

The provision in subsection b. of this is widespread in rumusannya due to use the generic term "abused" and did not hold details such as is the case with Article 52 K.U.H.P. with the word "... therefore do the crime ... which he gained because of his position." Sub. c.,, with the formulation of article 1 paragraph (1) a and b, then the term corruption in the Act is used in a broad sense, that is feasible in articles such as K.U.H.P. in the sub. c. dikwalifikasikan as a criminal act corruption. Sub. d., In K.U.H.P., not threatened with punishment of those who gave gifts to employees referred to in article 418 K.U.H.P., nor is it liable to a punishment of those who gave gifts to public servants as stipulated in the articles of this law.

To fill the vacancy that then held criminal acts of corruption set forth in article 1 paragraph (1) d. Sub. e..,, the provision in subsection. c. memidanakan is intended for someone who did not report the granting or promise that diperolehya with do follow-criminal-criminal follow-up referred to in article 418, 419, 420 K.U.H.P.

If not all elements of the criminal offence and such reporting is done with the purpose of solely in order note about bribery, then it is possible that sipenerima it can be released from prosecution based on the articles mentioned above. It thus does not mean that each of the reporting about the receipt of the grant/promise that frees the defendant from possible prosecution, when all the elements of a criminal offence in article 418, 419, 420 K.U.H.P. met. Paragraph (2).
.,, Due to the criminal offence of corruption is very detrimental to the financial/economy of the country, then experiment to do criminal acts that made its own delik and is liable to a penalty equal to the threat to the crime itself that has been completed.

Likewise, given the nature of the criminal offence of corruption, then the evil conspiracy to commit criminal acts of corruption, although still an action preparation can already are convicted in full as a criminal act.

Chapter 2, understanding, civil servants in this article includes not only the sense of civil servants in article 92 K.U.H.P. and understanding civil servants according to administrative law as set forth in Act No. 18 in 1961 about the provisions of principal employment, which include people who receive wages or lard from the finances of the State or region, but aside from that also includes people who receive the lard or the wage of an agency/agencies-law received financial assistance from the State or county or other legal entity that is utilizing respite-respite and capital of the country or society with funds obtained from the society for the benefit of social, humanitarian and others.

In the formulation of this article does not include people who receive a salary or wages from a limited liability company, the firm, c. v., and others that the entire capital from private capital.

Section 3.,, is quite clear.

Section 4.,, given the nature of the criminal offence of corruption is so special then the criminal actions against the perpetrator-perpetrators of the criminal act of corruption should be carried out quickly and effective within a reasonable time.

Article 5, the provisions of article, it is in accordance with the provisions of the R.I.B. also require an official undertaking investigations when there is "reasonable suspicion" about the existence of a criminal offence.

Section 6.,, is quite clear.

Article 7, paragraph (1), Different, with the provisions of article 274 R.I.B. that divides those who are exempt from the obligation of granting the description as a witness in some groups, then this article restricts those who excluded it on those who have the closest relationship of the suspect. Paragraph (2).
., The provisions of this paragraph, is in accordance with the provisions of article 275 R.I.B. subsection (1). Paragraph (3), the provisions of this paragraph, is in accordance with the provisions of article 275 R.I.B. paragraph (2).

Article 8 this Article, merely pointing to the clerk so that particular officer in the Catholic religion (Priests) who requested the assistance of psychological abuse, which are entrusted to keep a secret.

In general those who must keep a secret because the dignity, title or job is medical doctor, notary, Lawyer and officer of the religion have the right to free themselves from the testimony.

Therefore in law the eradication of criminal acts of Corruption as an act of ekseptionil to its right to free themselves from the testimony given to the officers of the religion in the sense mentioned above. But precisely because the rights of officials including the third category the other above is reduced, then the information from their testimony is only requested as a last effort to complete the proof.

Article 9, paragraph (1) and (2), azasnya, on the Bank of the clients ' secrets held as provided for in Article 36 of the Principal Banking laws.

In accordance with article 37 paragraph (2) the Principal Banking laws, the provisions of article 9 of the Act provides authority to the Minister of finance to give permission to the Prosecutor at the request of the Attorney General to ask for financial information about the State of the suspect showed Bank letters of the suspect. Paragraph (3).
.,, To accelerate and facilitate the investigation and prosecution of terlaksananva criminal acts of corruption then the provision permitting such as mentioned above need to be limited to a period of time forever fourteen (14) days from receipt of the request for a permit by the Minister of finance.

Article 10 this Article,, is meant to provide protection against reporters are those that provide information as well as information regarding a criminal offence of corruption, so that so that the rapporteur did not fear-fear of the unknown name/address which may endanger his life, when he was known by the public.

Because of the highly expected reports about the criminal acts of corruption that has been done or alleged to have been committed then it needs a given protection against the rapporteur that truly will help the effort eradicating corruption. So that this protection be guaranteed then witness the obligatory secret name/address or anything that allows the introduction of reporters both in the preliminary examination phase as well as in the trial court (article 19).

To prevent the violation of this provision then determined sanksinya, contained in article 31.

Article 11, paragraph (1).
., This Article, specify multiple conditions if investigators determine information about financial and/or property of suspects. Paragraph (2).
., Provision of reasons, this article is in accordance with article 8 and linked to article 9 above.

Article 12, determined that, with letters and submissions through the body of the post, telecommunications and others that can be opened and examined by investigators that is suspected of having links with hard criminal cases of corruption being examined then secrets letter submissions by the sender was entrusted to the body of the post, telecommunications and others remain established.

Article 13, paragraph (1).
.,, This provision gives authority to investigators to either in a State that is very urgent or not, can enter the House without prior permission from a judge. Paragraph (2) and (3).
.,, In terms of the occupant of a House refused to enter her house so investigators can get together of two witnesses. This provision is created by having a relationship with someone, then the human rights in the implementation of the provisions in question were held so that the investigators use those powers are without rights and abused.

14. Article,, is quite clear.

Section 3.,, deviate from the applicable provisions of the accusation contained a short blurb about the making of what is charged with calling the article in question.


Further elaborated in a language easily understood by a suspect while avoiding technical terms of usage that does not need to contain all the elements of the nucleus for the crime in question, with an accompanying description of the roughly at times and in places where the deed was done.

Accusation in this article does not require mention of the circumstances at the time of doing it mainly things that can relieve or incriminating the suspects as referred to in article 250 paragraph (4) R.I.B.

Article 16., terlindungnya, to guarantee the rights of the accused to give his defence, then the public prosecutor gave the addition of description over the accusation that briefly.

This can only be done at the beginning of the Council orally.

Article 17, paragraph (1).
.,, Rules regarding imposition of proof not followed completely although this does not mean that this article requires a proof that is upside down.

Proving that the reverse would lead to public prosecutor freed. right from the obligation to prove against wrong or whether a defendant, and the defendant otherwise burdened of proof about wrong or not.

In this article the judge allow the defendant testified about the proof does not constitute evidence according to the law, but everything can be more clarity makes no bones about covering a matter. Paragraph (2).
., Pretty clear, paragraph (3).
., That is proof, a description of the assessment materials for Judges who can be seen as beneficial or detrimental to the defendant. A beneficial or harmful information is not one that contains within it a punishment or exemption from punishment.

If the defendant can provide information about proof, the Prosecutor still has the authority to give proof of the opposite (tegenbewijs). Paragraph (4).
.,, Is quite clear.

Article 18, if the defendant in criminal cases of corruption cannot provide satisfactory information about the source of his wealth which was disproportionate to the income or the source of its wealth and the description then the addition in addition can be used to amplify the description of the witnesses that the defendant had committed the crime of corruption can also be seen a hint of the existence of works to enrich themselves as referred to in article 1 paragraph (1) of subsection a.

Vary with the physicochemical property appraisal organized by the coordinating body of Overseer of property that is the civil code (Civiel rechtelijk) then the liability of the defendants testified about the source of his wealth can only be done in criminal cases, of corruption.

Article 19, article 10 applies, explanation in this chapter merely about examination in advance of the trial.

Article 20, paragraph (1).
.,, The provision in article 7 applies also for examination in advance of the trial. Paragraph (2) and (3).
.,, The soul of the provision in paragraph (2) and (3) this is in accordance with article 275, among others, paragraph (1) and (2) R.I.B.

Chapter 21, the provision, in article 8, along with the explanation applies also for examination in advance of the trial.

Section 22.,, the provisions in Article 9, together with the explanation applies also for examination in advance of the trial.

Article 23, paragraph (1).
.,, Which is set out in this article is based on the idea that a defendant has the right to attend the court hearing to ask his defense efforts or to put forward everything asked by the examiner. But if the defendant does not exercise his right of it then the Court may perform the examination without the presence of the defendant in the trial. Paragraph (2).
.,, If in examination proceedings in progress and has not yet reached a verdict, the defendant was recently present at subsequent hearings ought to be heard and examined and the court hearing goes on. Paragraph (3), quite obviously, subsection (4).
.,, Often for the Court ruling that dropped without the presence of the defendant opened the possibility for the defendant to file an opposition, but in the case of corruption to speed up the procedure, the institution of the resistance ceases. Against the Court ruling can be directly requested the appeal according to the applicable regulations. Paragraph (5).
.,, Ruling as a stated purpose in Subsection a. of this paragraph excluded as an assignment judge (beschikking). Paragraph (6).
.,, This provision is necessary because the person concerned did not have the right of appeal against a verdict (assignment) in the said subsection (5) but may file a letter of objection against verdict (assignment).

24. Article,, is quite clear. See The General Explanations.

25. Article,, is quite clear. See The General Explanations.

Article 26,, the determination in this article that in dealing with cases of corruption perpetrators consists of person/people who should be tried by a court in the Military Justice and the environment/people who should be tried by the courts in the judicial environment Public Leadership/coordination of investigation are on the Attorney-General is an incarnation of uniformity in the investigation.

Article 27,, as a continuation of the provision in article 26 and in terms of the Attorney General after consultation with the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces argued that there was enough reason to litigate the corruption Court in advance of the superiors.

Who has the right to Punish/Officer Penyerah the matter did not use his authority as stated in article 10 paragraph (1). b. to determine that the suspect would be resolved out of court by closing the matter or by completing a disciplinary basis.

28. Article, this Provision, which is an increase of criminal threats in Act No. 24 of 1960 held Prp. in relation to loss and danger that grown by criminal acts of corruption.

Article 29, in opposing the Act, therefore, complicate its meaning, was profitable for the criminal offence of corruption, then it should be threatened with a fairly heavy criminal.

Article 30.,, the same explanation to Article 29.

Article 31,, see the explanation of article 10 and article 19.

Article 32.,, is quite clear.

33. Article,, is quite clear.

34. Article,, to get the maximum results from the efforts of the State financial losses or returns the chaos of the country's economy, then considered necessary once over the seizure of items of evidence on corruption is not limited to matters referred to in article 39 K.U.H.P. so that additional punishment is an expansion set in K.U.H.P.

When replacement payment cannot be met by the defendant then there was the provisions regarding the implementation of the payment of the penalty of a fine.

35. Article, this provision in article held to protect third parties which distinctively has in good faith.

Article 36, for the cases referred to in article treated this legislation that existed at the time the crime of corruption is done with the intent to be able to follow principle of legality which is mentioned in article 1 paragraph (1) K.U.H.P.

The principle of legality is a fundamental element in State law, in addition to the recognition of human rights which must be uphold high and judicial elements.

The principle of Penyampingan, which resulted in a legislation as a whole had sold power ebbs (retro actief power) and can be interpreted broadly, have sometimes done by authoritarian Governments and within the State of law can only be justified by an emergency law.

The provisions in article 36 in particular applies to things of the transitoir, so that the provisions of the law on the eradication of criminal acts of Corruption applies solely to acts committed after the legislation was enacted.

37. Article,, is quite clear.