Reconstruction Of The Policy For Implementing Criminal Sanctions In Corruption Cases In Goods Procurement For The Development Of Justice-Based Social Infrastructure

Abstract

Implementation penalty criminal corruption procurement goods To use development infrastructure Not yet based on policy law procurement goods,  This make penalty criminal can said only is ornamental, because problem procurement goods should No can in a way direct worn penalty criminal as ultimate remidium, remembering procurement goods arranged with law administration No law criminal, as for threat criminal only as drug final when violation in the realm procurement goods in development infrastructure No under control. Article This use method doctrinal research. Based on results existing discussion can understood that implementation penalty criminal corruption procurement goods To use development infrastructure Not yet based on policy law procurement goods, so penalty criminal his position Still sumir, because problem procurement goods should No can in a way direct worn penalty criminal as ultimate remidium, remembering procurement goods arranged with law administration No law criminal, as for threat criminal only as drug final when violation in the realm procurement goods in development infrastructure No under control, then can said that need perhaps added provision in Law no. 1 of 2004, namely paragraph (25) in Article 1 of Law no. 1 of 2004 which states follow criminal procurement goods is action profitable self Alone in maintenance procurement goods and services available detrimental to the country and/ or individuals and/ or legal entities. Then Article 64A Law no. 1 of 2004 which states that as for type threat criminal as intended in Article 64 consists from criminal imprisonment for a minimum of 4 years and a maximum of 20 years with criminal fine amounting to Rp. 10,000,000,000.00.