The Role of Public Prosecutors in Corruption Crimes Originating from Time Saber Pungli

Illegal levies are a form of corruption that occurs widely in the public service sector, both at the center and in the regions. The government has formed a Task Force for Clearing Illegal Charges to eradicate illegal levies with the authority to carry out caught in the act (OTT) operations. This study tries to examine the problems: the legal regulations of the illegal levies sweeping task force in carrying out caught red-handed operations, the inhibiting factors for caught red-handed operations and the law enforcement policy for caught red-handed operations in decision number 58/Pid.Sus-TPK/2017/PN MDN. The method used in this study is a normative and empirical research method. The nature of the research is descriptive. The type of data used is secondary data sourced from primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. Secondary data was collected using library research techniques and field studies with data collection tools in the form of interviews. Furthermore, these data were analyzed using qualitative analysis. The results of the study indicate that the legal regulations of the task force for sweeping illegal levies in carrying out operations caught in the act have been regulated in Presidential Regulation Number 87 of 2016 and Decree of the Governor of North Sumatra Number 188.44/181/KPTS/2018. Meanwhile, the inhibiting factors encountered were limited funds, facilities, information that was difficult to obtain, lack of community participation, lack of socialization, and cultural problems. Regarding the policy of law enforcement operations caught red-handed in case number 58/Pid.Sus-TPK/2017/PN MDN, an analysis of the chronology of the case, prosecutor's indictment, prosecutor's demands, legal facts, judge's considerations, judge's decision and case analysis was carried out. Based on the analysis of case number 58/Pid.Sus-TPK/2107/PN MDN, there is an inappropriate application of the law. The prosecutor charged the defendant ESS with Article 11. According to the analysis of this case, the defendant should have been prosecuted and decided using Article 12 letter e, namely the crime ofextortion.