Vol. 4, Issue 3, Part B (2018)

Abstract
Article 1 paragraph 1 of Act No. 19/2003 on State-Owned Enterprises states that state participation is a separated state asset. On the other hand, article 11 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act states that the management of state-owned enterprises is conducted based on Act No. 1/1995 which was amended with Act No. 40/2007 on limited liability companies/incorporated companies and their implementation regulations. The loss at State-Owned Enterprises of law enforcers and state apparatus holds to Article 2 sub-article g of the State Finance Act which states that the property of the state / property of the region is to be self managed or managed by another party in the form of money, securities, receivables, goods and other rights which can be valued with money, including property that is separated from state-owned companies and a general explanation of the crime of corruption which states that state-owned separated shares are state assets that remain in the public jurisdiction. This indicates the absence of synchronization or uniformity regarding the definition of state finance between the state finance act, the state-owned enterprises act and the corruption act. Differences in the definition or meaning of the legislation causes problems in the effort to eradicate corruption. Based on the background mentioned above, the problems in this study are as follows: first What is corruption in the management of State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs)? And second What is the system of law enforcement in the case of state financial loss to State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs)? The method of legal research in this study is the normative approach. The results of the research show that, first Practices that occur so far against the troubled SOEs are that the perpetrators are punished with the crime of corruption; second There are three elements that must be considered in the Law Enforcement of the Crime of Corruption in the management of state finances: Legal Structure, Legal Substance and Legal Culture.