CD Tesis

Harmonisasi Peraturan Penyelesaian Kerugian Negara Di Lingkungan Pemerintah Daerah

---

State loss settlement regulations are useful for completing the findings of examination results from
the Audit Board (BPK) and the Government Internal Supervision Apparatus (APIP).If the findings
of the examination results are not followed up with the determination within 5 (five) years since the
discovery of the loss of the State / Region or within 8 (eight) years since the occurrence of State /
Regional Losses are not prosecuted for damages then, the right to claim state compensation becomes
expired. In the data owned by the BPK, there are 455 findings that have been reported to law
enforcement, during the period 2013 to Semester 1 2015, the findings contained criminal elements
worth Rp45.10 trillion.In the data, it is known that 419 findings or about 94% have been followed
up by authorized agencies.Data recapitulated in the period 2013 to Semester 1 2015. The current
state loss settlement regulations regulate the settlement of state losses based on the authority of each
independent agency without synergy so that it has legal consequences, namely misuse of the authority
to calculate state losses, settlement of state losses caused by non-maximal third parties, risk of abuse
of authority in the state financial recovery process, expired state losses so that the state loses the
right to sue. Disharmony consists of differences in understanding the authority of calculation and
determination of state losses carried out by the Government Internal Supervision Apparatus, the
Indonesian Audit Board and the Indonesian Prosecutor's Office, as well as differences in the
procedures for resolving state losses in local government environments that are not mutually
sustainable. Therefore, the formulation of the problem can be drawn, namely how the problem of
regulating the Resolution of State Losses in the Local Government and how the idea of regulating
the Settlement of State Losses in the Local Government environment. The results of the discussion
obtained the conclusion that the authority of calculation and determination of state losses becomes
ambiguous and interpreted differently by various parties so that it risks abuse of authority; and
regulatory differences in the procedures for resolving state losses can result in the settlement of state
losses are not transparent and do not create synergy between agencies in the settlement of state
losses and the establishment of state loss settlement regulations by third parties to be an obstacle to
the implementation of follow-up state losses; as well as a hearing by the TPTGR Assembly which is
also conducted by the local government is not carried out so that it risks making state losses that
have not been determined to be expired; and The Treasurer of The Indonesian Attorney's Office is
not authorized to receive refunds of state losses, the return of state losses should be directly deposited
into the state treasury or regional coffers (in accordance with the provisions of Article 1 number 17
of Law Number 1 of 2004) to reduce the potential risk of abuse of authority; and the Memorandum
of Understanding of the BPK RI and the Indonesian Prosecutor's Office has not contained
information that the Indonesian Prosecutor's Office must inform any state losses derived from the
results of the BPK RI examination and have been deposited, must be informed back to the BPK RI.
Keywords: Harmonization of Regulations, Settlement of State Losses, Local Government

---

Ketersediaan

Informasi Detail

Judul Seri

-

No. Panggil

1910247164

Penerbit

Pekanbaru : Universitas Riau – Pascasarjana – Tesis Ilmu Hukum., 2021

Deskripsi Fisik

-

Bahasa

Indonesia

ISBN/ISSN

-

Klasifikasi

1910247164

Tipe Isi

-

Tipe Media

-

Tipe Pembawa

-

Edisi

-

Subjek

ILMU HUKUM

Info Detail Spesifik

-

Pernyataan Tanggungjawab

FATAH

Versi lain/terkait

Lampiran Berkas

Komentar

---

Anda harus masuk sebelum memberikan komentar