Potential State Losses: Analysis of the Law on Criminal Acts of Corruption

As a result of this alleged deviation, the state has the potential to suffer huge losses. In the UU Tipikor, there are two main articles that are relevant to this case.

Article 2: Elements Detrimental to State Finances

Article 2 paragraph (1) of the UU Tipikor ensnares anyone who is against the law to enrich themselves, other people, or corporations thatcan harm state finances. In the context of the Citraland case, the element of state loss can be fulfilled from:
  1. Release of BUMN assets (PTPN I) without legal procedures.
  2. Failure to fulfill the obligation to hand over 20% of the land to the state.
  3. Transfer of rights to private parties without a clear legal basis.

Article 3: Elements of Abuse of Authority

Article 3 of the Anti-CorruptionLaw focuses on abuse of authority. This article ensnares officials who abuse their authority, opportunity, or facilities due to their position or status to benefit themselves, others, or corporations, which can harm state finances.

Understanding Land Status: HGU vs HGB

To understand this case, it is important to know the differences in land rights status in Indonesia according toLaw Number 5 of 1960 concerning Basic Regulations on Agrarian Principles (UUPA):
  • Right to Cultivate (HGU): The right to cultivate state land (state-owned) for agriculture, plantations, or animal husbandry for a certain period. This was the initial land status of PTPN I.
  • Right to Build (HGB): The right to erect and own buildings on state land or the land of another party for a certain period. This is the status desired by the Citraland developer.
  • Freehold: A hereditary and full right that can only be owned by Indonesian Citizens (WNI).
The problem in the Citraland case is the transfer of function from HGU (state/BUMN assets) to HGB (for private interests) which is suspected of violating procedures.