Law Enforcement Strategies for Transnational Money Laundering Corruption Crimes in Criminal Law Reform in Indonesia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The goals of this research are to analyze and formulate law enforcement strategies in overcoming money laundering cases resulting from transnational corruption in Indonesia. Transnational corruption and money laundering are important issues that can weaken the economic and social structure of a country, including Indonesia. These crimes create complex networks that exacerbate corruption problems, undermine state legitimacy and facilitate other illegal practices. Method: This study uses a normative juridical approach, namely legal research that aims to find principles, norms or das sollen. The main data sources are primary and secondary legal materials in the form of regulations and literature relevant to the research topic. Result: This research shows that law enforcement strategies against money laundering proceeds from transnational corruption in Indonesia should involve four main elements: law and regulatory reform, law enforcement capacity building, increased international cooperation, and greater public participation Conclusion: The contribution of this research and par can provide recommendations to various stakeholders and eradicate this criminal act, despite challenges in implementation, this strategy is important to increase the effectiveness of law enforcement and encourage better governance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it