<![CDATA[This study examines how Indonesian state administrative law can prevent, detect, and correct corruption-related irregularities without displacing criminal accountability. Using a normative-juridical and documentary approach updated to the legal framework applicable in 2026, it analyses governmental administration, anti-corruption law, the 2023 Criminal Code and 2026 Criminal Adjustment Law, internal control, civil-service discipline, procurement, administrative review, and twenty-two peer-reviewed studies. Institutional capacity is assessed qualitatively across five functions: prevention, early detection, correction, recovery, and deterrence. The findings identify six administrative instrument families. Administrative law is strongest in ex ante prevention, internal detection, and corrective action, while criminal law remains indispensable where conduct involves intentional personal or third-party gain, bribery, concealment, coercive investigation, or serious systemic harm. The study distinguishes procedural error, maladministration, misuse of discretion, abuse of authority, and intentional corrupt abuse. It proposes four allocation criteria: intent to obtain gain, magnitude of harm, systemic or repeated character, and recoverability. It concludes that the administrative-criminal relationship should operate as a legally bounded functional division of labour, not a hierarchy. The academic contribution is an operational allocation matrix that preserves mandatory criminal liability for serious intentional corruption while protecting good-faith administrative decision-making.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
