REKONSTRUKSI PEMBERI GRATIFIKASI SEBAGAI SUBYEK TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI

Gratification has not yet been regulated by laws and regulations as a criminal  act. This happened in the Samin Tan case, where the judges of the Jakarta  Corruption Court released Samin Tan from granting a gratuity of IDR 5 billion to  Eni Maulani Saragih as a member of Commission VII DPR for the 2014-2019  period. The current formulation of policies regarding gratification in Law  Number 31 of 1999 concerning Corruption requires restructuring, especially in  the substance of the meaning of gratification, reporting on receipt of gratification  to the KPK, criminal sanctions, and qualifications of the giver and recipient of  gratification. so that the optimization of the application and enforcement of  appropriate laws is achieved, namely certainty and justice. Reconstruction of the  gratification provider for corruption must be based on a low level of gratification  and bribery according to its definition. Bribery has the definition of a relationship  due to the consequences of actions that result in or influence a person in his  position as a state administrator to the interests of the bribe giver. While  gratification should only be a gift, without having to be associated with any  reciprocal actions. With a clear distinction between bribery and pure gratification  that does not lead to bribery, the weight of the punishment is determined.  Likewise, the gratuity giver, if it is said to be a bribe, must explain how much  punishment was given to him. For example, the giver of gratuities as referred to in  Article 12 B of Law no. 31 of 1999 as amended by Law no. 20 of 2001 concerning  the Eradication of Corruption Crimes is the same as receiving gratuities. Thus the  effect can be felt in a balanced way because it destroys requests and requests for  prohibited acts.