IMPLEMENTATION OF LAWS REGARDING ECONOMIC CRIME IN THE ECONOMIC FIELD IN LAW NUMBER 20 OF 2001 CONCERNING ERADICATION OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF CORRUPTION

Crimes against the economy pose a significant challenge to the development and maintenance of economies across the world. The Indonesian government has enacted a number of laws, notably Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Corruption Crimes, in order to address this issue and find a solution. This legislation plays a significant part in the fight against economic criminal activity in all areas of the economy. The purpose of this research is to investigate the challenges and elements that contribute to the success or failure of anti-corruption efforts. This study employed an empirical research method, which is a type of legal research that involves examining primary and secondary data, specifically data obtained directly from the public through field studies and literature studies. Field studies and literature studies are two of the most significant challenges facing efforts to eradicate economic crime in Indonesia. This study has significant implications that will enhance knowledge, provide advice


INTRODUCTION
Economic crime is a series of illegal acts that occur in the context of economic activity. 1This covers a broad spectrum of illegal activities, from economic and financial rule breaking to fraud and power abuse.Corruption, investment fraud, insider trading, money laundering, monopolies, counterfeiting, insurance fraud, tax evasion, and other illicit financial activities are all examples of economic crimes.In many cases, the perpetrators of these acts are after some kind of illicit financial gain, whether at the expense of a person, a business, or the national economy as a whole.Victims of economic crime are harmed together with the general public, the economy, and the integrity of the market as a whole.
Governments and law enforcement agencies must coordinate to fight economic crime by passing stringent legislation, increasing monitoring and transparency, and punishing offenders severely.It is also important to educate and inform the public about the dangers of economic crime so that more people will be on the lookout for and report suspicious activity to the proper authorities.Together, we can build a trustworthy, honest, and fair business climate via the strict execution of existing rules.
Economic crimes can also have far-reaching and damaging impacts on society and the economy as a whole. 2 Corruption, for instance, has been shown to undermine public faith in government and slow economic growth.Investors that lack access to inside knowledge may suffer losses due to monopolistic activities and insider trading, respectively.Furthermore, economic crimes sometimes entail intricate and wellorganized networks of criminals who are adept at dodging justice and hiding their tracks.This calls for intensive measures to identify and apprehend those responsible for economic wrongdoing.
Laws governing economic crimes are an important legal foundation in law enforcement against economic violations. 3In Indonesia, there are several relevant laws that aim to tackle economic crime and ensure the integrity of the economic sector. 4 Law Number 31 of 1999 about the Eradication of Corruption Crimes is one of the laws in Indonesia that helps to regulate corrupt economic crimes.The economy is only one area that will benefit from this law's efforts to stamp out corruption.Corruption-related crimes, 1 Z. preventative measures, investigations, prosecutions, and penalties are all spelled out in this statute.
Law enforcement, government, regulators, the commercial sector, and the general public must all work together to ensure that economic crime laws are enforced.Economic crime investigations, evidence collection, and prosecution are all the purview of law enforcement.Governments and regulators have a crucial role in keeping tabs on the economy, coming up with appropriate policy responses, and keeping the legislation current with technology advances.Meanwhile, the private sector is required to report questionable behavior and adhere to ethical business practices.The public has to be educated and reached out to so that they may better understand the dangers of economic crime and the significance of reporting infractions to the proper authorities.Integrity, openness, and justice in Indonesia's economic sector are all things that stand to benefit from strict enforcement of the country's laws against economic crimes.Tough law enforcement against economic crimes will convey a clear message that infractions will not be tolerated, boosting public faith in an honest and open economic system. 5cording to the findings of the Corruption Eradication Commission, the corruption investigation against Minister of Agriculture Syahrul Yasin Limpo may be broken down into three distinct but related groups.The first group of these cases is being handled by the Corruption Eradication Commission, as stated by Asep Guntur, acting deputy enforcement and execution of the Corruption Eradication Commission.The Ministry of Agriculture still has two more clusters to look into before any shady dealings can be uncovered.After the matter has been resolved, the Corruption Eradication Commission said they will make the information public.The Corruption Eradication Commission needs at least two pieces of substantial evidence to be able to identify suspects.Asep Guntur stressed that the Corruption Eradication Commission was collecting notes and would require some time to investigate these trends in depth.The Agriculture Minister, Syahrul Yasin Limpo, was questioned on 19 June at the ACLC facility of the Corruption Eradication Commission in relation to allegations of corruption.Syahrul has pledged his participation and cooperation with the Corruption Eradication Commission's judicial proceedings.He had already requested that the test be rescheduled so that he could complete certain unavoidable state obligations.However, Syahrul did not elaborate on why the Corruption Eradication Commission team examined the items they did.According to data gathered by JawaPos.com, he needs to postpone the test so that he may attend to state obligations.However, Syahrul did not elaborate on why the Corruption Eradication Commission team examined the items they did.
According to data gathered by JawaPos.com, he needs to postpone the test so that he may attend to state obligations.However, Syahrul did not elaborate on why the Corruption Eradication Commission team examined the items they did.Corruption crimes including extortion, gratuities, and money laundering were alleged to have been committed by Syahrul Yasin Limpo and many of his subordinates, according to data gathered by JawaPos.com. 6The Ministry of Agriculture was the site of this incident sometime between 2019 and 2023.Corruption laws broken include Article 12E and/or Article 12B of Law no.20/2001 amending Law no.31/1999, Article 3 of Law no. 8 of 2010 addressing the crime of money laundering, and Articles 56 and 55 paragraph (1) 1 of the Criminal Code.A Travel Order was abused, leading to a mashup of numerous other instances involving state funds, gratuities, bribes, aid, joint activities, and more.
In Indonesia, the eradication of corruption faces several problems that affect its effectiveness.The following are some of the problems that are often encountered in efforts to eradicate corruption in Indonesia: 1. First, public officials such as politicians, bureaucrats, and police officers are often complicit in corrupt activities in Indonesia.Corruption is hard to combat when people tasked with upholding the law are complicit in it, since this frequently leads to political intervention or protection amongst professional colleagues.7 2. Corruption in Indonesia is pervasive, and it often involves enormous quantities of money and intricate networks.Government, public works projects, the banking system, and even the private sector are not immune to corruption.
Because of this, dealing with corruption cases is more difficult, and efforts must be made to detect corruption networks. 83. Weak Legal System and Law Enforcement Despite efforts to improve the legal system and law enforcement in Indonesia, both areas remain problematic.The sluggish legal procedure, the pervasiveness of corruption in the court system, and the dearth of skilled personnel all played a role.As a consequence, there were inadequate rates of reporting, prosecution, and punishment for corrupt individuals. 94. The need of fighting corruption is still not well understood by the Indonesian public.Lack of education on corruption, cultural tolerance for acts of corruption, and distrust in the current judicial system all had a role in contributing to this low awareness.The public's lack of knowledge makes it challenging to enlist their help in the fight against corruption. 105. Insufficient Coordination Among Agencies The police, prosecutors, and anticorruption organizations all need to work together closely in order to effectively combat corruption.However, attempts to reduce corruption are sometimes hampered by rivalry or a lack of cooperation across various agencies.
A strong commitment from the government, improved law enforcement agency integrity, more public knowledge, and increased inter-agency collaboration are all critical steps toward eradicating corruption in Indonesia.

RESEARCH METHODS
This study used an empirical research strategy, which is a subfield of jurisprudence based on the analysis of primary and secondary data (information gathered from members of the general public via surveys and interviews as well as published sources).Empirical legal research, as defined by Soerjono Soekanto and Sri Mamudji, is the study of law based on an examination of primary data, or data collected from members of the general population.As a growing branch of the social sciences, empirical research in the field of law examines the effects of law on society by focusing on legal occurrences or symptoms.11This research makes use of both primary and secondary sources of information.Finally, the author will make conclusions based on a qualitative analysis and descriptive presentation of the data gathered, all in keeping with the contextualizations of this study.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The Dutch word for "crime," "Strafbaar Feit," is where the English word "crime" originates.Three words make up the term "strafbaar feit": straf, baar, and feit.The word "straf" means "crime law" in German.Baar means "can" or "may" in English.Feit may mean anything from an act to a breach of the law. 12In the Netherlands, the word "crime" is "strafbaar feit," but the phrase "offense" is often used in the literature on criminal law and "criminal act" is the term used by lawmakers when drafting a legislation. 13 criminal act is an act that is prohibited by a rule of law, and this prohibition is accompanied by threats (sanctions) in the form of certain criminal sanctions for anyone who violates the prohibition," as stated by Moeljatno.14 When Pompe defined "a strafbaar feit," he meant an offense that the law explicitly makes criminal.15 R. Tresna defines crime as "an act of a human being that is contrary to other laws or regulations, for which a punishment is held."1617 The purpose of law enforcement is to maintain social peace and order by the prevention, detection, and punishment of illegal activities.18By applying the provisions of criminal procedure law that are regulated honestly and precisely, the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter abbreviated as the Criminal Procedure Code) seeks material truth, the complete truth of a criminal case.19 Even if many individuals believe they do not have legal certainty after going through the trial process in court, law enforcement must be founded on the genuine philosophy and purpose of law in order to achieve legal certainty for everyone.
Every choice a person has along the path to a criminal determination is part of criminal justice (Criminal Justice).20Focusing on the "searching for and collecting evidence so that the crime found can become a light, and in order to find and determine the perpetrators," criminal procedural law's investigative actions are central to the process of "looking for and finding an event" that is considered or suspected to be criminal.21 According to Sondang P. Siagian, efficiency is the utilization of resources, facilities, and infrastructure in a predetermined quantity to generate a number of commodities for the services of the activities it does.If the objectives are met, then the project may be considered effective.The greater the efficacy, the closer the outcomes of actions will be to the intended outcome. 2216 Chazawi.
The theory of legal effectiveness according to Soerjono Soekanto is that whether a law is effective or not is determined by 5 (five) factors, namely:23 a.The legal factor itself (law) b.Law enforcement factors, namely the parties that make up and apply the law; c.Factors of facilities or facilities that support law enforcement; d.Community factors, namely the environment where the law applies or is applied; e. Cultural factors, namely as a result of work, creativity and feelings that are felt in human initiative in social life.

Lack Of Effective Law Enforcement
The failure to effectively enforce laws against economic crimes, most notably corruption, is what is meant by "lack of effective law enforcement."In the context of economic crimes in Indonesia, the following are some of the elements that lead to ineffective law enforcement: a) Limited resources Forces of law and order often have to work with little funding, personnel, and technology.The investigation, collecting of evidence, and prosecution of complicated economic crime cases may be hampered by a lack of experienced and well-trained employees.The capacity of law enforcement to cope with the complex issues posed by economic crime is hampered by a lack of funding for forensic equipment, labs, and training.The extent to which law enforcement agencies are corrupt is directly correlated with their meager allocation of human, financial, and technological resources.A lack of skilled and adequately trained staff is a contributing factor to the prevalence of corruption.There might be delays and inefficiency in the administration of corruption charges if law enforcement organizations do not have enough employees, including judges, prosecutors, and investigating officers.This may lead to a backlog of pending cases and open the door for widespread corruption.
Furthermore, restricted financial resources also play a significant role in combating corruption.Without sufficient funding, law enforcement organizations would struggle to set up essential infrastructure like forensic labs and secure buildings.Law enforcement agencies may not be able to pay enough wages to combat bribery and internal corruption if they do not have sufficient funding.Moreover, funding limits might impede employee training and skill development, both of which are crucial in handling complicated corruption situations.
The fight against corruption by law enforcement is hampered by inadequate technological resources like information technology and infrastructure.In order to investigate crimes and gather evidence, law enforcement organizations need access to cutting-edge technology and complex information systems.However, proving corruption may be challenging if law enforcement authorities lack the technological resources or expertise to gather, analyze, and store the data required to do so.Corrupt actors may use this restriction to their advantage in order to delay investigations and prosecutions, as well as to alter or destroy electronic evidence.
To get over this obstacle, the government must provide sufficient resources to law enforcement.This involves ensuring that current staff get sufficient training and raising the funds to satisfy the operational and infrastructure demands of law enforcement organizations.Law enforcement organizations may be more efficient and successful in their fight against corruption if they make using contemporary technologies in the investigation and collecting of evidence a top priority.As a result, following these procedures may aid in the fight against corruption and make law enforcement more efficient in handling such situations.

b) Lack of expertise and technical ability
Expertise in finance, auditing, investigation, and data analysis is crucial when dealing with situations of economic crime.Unfortunately, not all members of law enforcement have the necessary knowledge and resources to combat the increasingly sophisticated and sophisticated nature of economic crimes.In order to stay informed on the most recent trends in the economic crime arena, law enforcement authorities need continuous training and capacity building.
Corruption may be exacerbated by a lack of knowledge and skill.When someone is in charge of a work or project but lacks the necessary expertise, he may feel driven to cut corners or behave unethically in order to compensate for his shortcomings or keep his job.
A lack of technical skills and knowledge may lead to bribery, bribery, or the misuse of authority for personal gain in the context of corruption.An employee who is not well-versed in the policies and procedures of his workplace runs the risk of abusing his authority by, for example, taking bribes or using his position to improperly influence the purchase of products and services.
Lack of technological expertise and resources may also hinder openness and responsibility.If workers don't have a firm grasp on their tasks, they may not be able to detect problems when they arise.This may make it easier for unscrupulous practices to go unpunished.
Decisions that aren't optimum or efficient may also be the consequence of a lack of experience and technical skills inside an institution or organization.This may make the atmosphere more hospitable to corrupt activities like data tampering and disregard for established protocols, both of which are harmful to society.Thus, incompetence in technical areas may contribute to corruption by compromising the honesty and fair play of those in charge.Corruption due to a lack of technical skill and capacity may be mitigated via efforts to increase education, training, and monitoring in relevant areas.

c) Political intervention and corruption
Effective legal enforcement against economic crimes may be hampered by political interference and corruption.Delays, case abandonment, or biased briefings may happen when politics gets in the way of an investigation, prosecution, or trial.Corruption in law enforcement is another barrier to bringing those responsible for economic crimes who also have political sway or influence to justice.Limited cooperation and coordination A lack of cooperation and coordination between law enforcement agencies, governments, regulators and the private sector can hinder effective law enforcement.The importance of exchanging information, collaboration in investigations, and synergy between various related institutions in uncovering and prosecuting economic crimes is often hampered by different individual or institutional interests.

d) Legal uncertainty and inconsistent interpretation
The execution of laws against economic crimes may be complicated by ambiguity in the law and conflicting interpretations of such laws.It is detrimental to the rule of law and the efficiency of law enforcement when there is uncertainty regarding the interpretation of laws or controversies between law enforcement agencies, courts, and companies.
Corruption allegations against the Minister of Agriculture may have far-reaching consequences if law enforcement is ineffective.Corruption charges involving highranking officials, such as the Minister, might easily be overlooked or not achieve a fair decision if the law enforcement apparatus is not able to function efficiently.This may cause frustration and resentment against law enforcement, which can damage public faith in them.Corrupt officials may feel emboldened to behave without concern for major repercussions because of the ineffectiveness of investigations into corruption cases.Corruption criminals' confidence in their ability to evade a rigorous judicial procedure rises as a result.To the disadvantage of the public interest, law enforcement's ineffectiveness lack this area might lead to more corruption in the nation over time.To successfully address corruption issues, protect justice, and restore public faith in law enforcement, the criminal justice system must be strengthened.

Weaknesses In The Justice System
Weaknesses of the justice system refer to the various problems and challenges faced in the court process.In the context of economic crimes in Indonesia, some of the weaknesses in the justice system that often occur are as follows: a) Slow court processes: One common problem is the slow pace of court processes.The handling of economic crime cases can take a very long time before reaching a final decision.The delay in this process can reduce the effectiveness of law enforcement, affect public confidence in the justice system, and give the impression that perpetrators of economic crimes can avoid the punishment they deserve.b) Complexity of procedures: The complex and convoluted justice system is also a weakness.A variety of complex procedures, including filing of files, trials, gathering of evidence, and rendering of decisions, can cause delays and confusion in court proceedings.It also requires considerable time and effort on the part of the parties involved, including prosecutors, lawyers and judges.c) Vulnerable to intervention and corruption: The justice system is prone to political intervention and corruption is a serious problem in law enforcement against economic crimes.Political intervention can affect the independence and objectivity of court proceedings, while corruption among judges, prosecutors and other related parties can undermine the integrity of the justice system.This could result in unfair decisions or acquittals of economic criminals who should be punished.d) Lack of specialization and understanding of economic crimes: Not all judges, prosecutors or advocates have adequate understanding and expertise in dealing with economic crimes cases.Economic crimes involve complex financial, accounting and business aspects, so an in-depth understanding of them is required.A lack of specialization in dealing with economic crime cases can hinder the ability of the justice system to understand the technical aspects and analyze the evidence related to these cases.e) Lack of protection for witnesses and parties involved: Protection for witnesses, complainants or parties involved in economic crime cases is often inadequate.This can hinder honest and open testimony, as well as intimidate or threaten their safety.This lack of protection can affect people's willingness to report economic crimes and participate in the justice process.
There has to be major changes made to the judicial system so that it can better handle cases involving economic crimes.Increased expertise and specialization of judges, prosecutors, and advocates in handling economic crimes; strengthened integrity and independence of the justice system through tighter supervision and disciplinary action against corruption; and improved protection for witnesses and related parties to encourage more active participation in the justice system are all necessary steps.To fix the flaws in the current judicial system, changes to the law and regulations should be explored.
There are a number of flaws in our judicial system that undermine its ability to uphold the law.The amount of time it takes to go to trial is a disadvantage.Justice for the parties in a lawsuit may be delayed by lengthy and inefficient court processes.The duration of the judicial process may be attributed to a variety of variables, including the complexity of the case, the number of judges and educators assigned to it, and the strategies used by the parties.
The judicial system also has a serious flaw in its lack of openness and accountability.Lack of openness and transparency in the judicial process prevents the public from seeing how cases are handled and rulings are reached.This might cause people to question if the judicial system is tainted by favoritism, collaboration, or corruption.When judges or other judicial officials make mistakes or misuse their authority, the public has a hard time getting the justice they are due because of a lack of accountability.
Another common flaw is limited access to the legal system.Those who lack the means, the education, or the knowledge to effectively pursue or defend legal claims may struggle to do so due to inadequate access to the court system.When people are denied equal protection under the law because of differences in their ability to get access to the legal system, everyone loses.
Corruption inside the judicial system is a fatal flaw, to conclude.When judges, prosecutors, or other members of the court system are corrupt, the whole system suffers.The public's faith in the judicial system may be shattered when judges and lawyers accept bribes, favors, or favoritism in exchange for favorable rulings.
Reforms aimed at addressing these issues are necessary to bring about meaningful change in the judicial system.The goal of these changes is to make the justice system more efficient by decreasing waiting times, expanding access to the courts, and eliminating corruption.By strengthening these areas, the judicial system will be better able to defend people' rights and ensure that justice is served.

CONCLUSION
Two of the biggest obstacles to eliminating economic crime in Indonesia are the country's inadequate law enforcement and judicial system.Contributing reasons to ineffective law enforcement include a lack of money, competence, and technological skills; political interference; corruption; and a lack of inter-agency collaboration and coordination.Meanwhile, the sluggish speed of judicial proceedings, the lack of openness, and the poor quality of verdicts all point to the justice system's inherent weakness.Resources must be increased, training must be improved, the legal system must be reformed, political interference must be eliminated, and institutions must work together more effectively.Furthermore, in order to boost law enforcement against economic crimes, it is important to pay attention to the uniformity of interpretation of laws and to increase in legal clarity.