NEGATING STATES LOSSES APPROACH ON FINE PUNISHMENT OF CRIMINAL ACT OF CORRUPTION.

The criminal act of corruption is viewed from the formulation of the offense Article 2 of Law Number 31 Year 1999 concerning the Crime of Corruption is an economic offense caused by an act against the law, as a logical consequence of the Against the Law is to restore or negate the state’s losses (meniadakan kerugian negara) , So that criminal penalties take into account aspects of economic principles such as the costs incurred to finance the investigation, prosecution and execution of decisions issued by the state. Within the legal framework, the concept does not come out of the juridical base on the types of criminal penalties in Article 10 of the Criminal Code, article 1365 of the Civil Code of Action against the Law, and Article 18 paragraph (1) sub-paragraph b of the Corruption Law concerning additional criminal paying substitute money, then explicitly formulated In article 222 of the Criminal Procedure Code, reinforced by the argument of law enforcement objectives established by Gustav Rabruch, achieve justice, utility and legal certainty, with priority on utility. Not becoming prevalent zero losses concept applied because it is trapped in the prevalence of enforcing the law of corruption with the priority on legal certainty, it requires the progressive and militant spirit of the judges but a high and long commitment and a relatively long time to start with the target group within the judge to get out of the routine of law enforcement that is running