According to the applicable procedural law, findings of state financial losses due to tax crimes must be delegated to PPNS (Civil Servant Investigators) at the Directorate General of Taxes as the institution authorized to investigate and investigate tax crimes. If the handling of state financial losses due to the two crimes must be separated, by delegating the handling of tax crimes to the Directorate General of Taxes first, then this will actually cause problems and the recovery of state financial losses will not be optimal. To analyze these problems, this research uses progressive legal theory as the grand theory and responsive legal theory as the middle theory. The type of research used is normative legal research or doctrinal research, namely legal research conducted by examining legal materials, whether in the form of doctrines or legal principles in the science of law. Meanwhile, the approach used in this study is the statutory approach, the case approach, and the conceptual approach. The types and sources of legal materials used in this normative legal research consist of Primary Legal Materials, Secondary Legal Materials, and Tertiary Legal Materials. The results obtained from the research, that in carrying out his authority as an investigator and as a Public Prosecutor, the Prosecutor must be able to reflect on the rules he is dealing with, so that he does not implement the law statically but can be dynamic, because procedural law/procedure law is not always able to regulate completely, because Therefore, the presence of prosecutors who dare to make breakthroughs is the key to success in optimizing the recovery of state financial losses due to criminal acts of corruption that intersect with criminal acts of taxation.
Keywords: criminal corruption, criminal taxation, legal handling, legal theory, state losses
