Indonesia is one of the countries with a large number of corruption cases. Criminal acts of corruption in Indonesia have been pervasive and have entered into all walks of life. Its development continues to increase from year to year, in the number of cases that occur and the amount of state financial losses and regarding the quality of criminal acts of corruption carried out more systematically that has entered aspects of community life. Increased uncontrolled corruption will bring impacts that are not only limited to the life of the national economy but also to the life of the nation and state in general. This study uses a normative and empirical juridical approach. Normative research is carried out on the theoretical matters of legal principles relating to law enforcement in the case of corruption in Indonesia. This research method uses several approaches to produce a reasonable conclusion. The strategy of prosecuting policies in certain crimes must pay attention to the nature of the problem. If the nature of the problem is more on economic or trade issues, it should take precedence over sanctions for action and/or fines. The formulation of sanctions between Article 2 and Article 3 of this Law is contrary to the general provisions concerning sanctions regulated in the Criminal Code. In the Criminal Code determines if an act is carried out because of position and violates the authority. It is a criminal weight, while in this law in Article 3 which is an act as stipulated in Article 2 but carried out by misusing the authority, opportunity or means that exists because of the position or position but the threat is lighter than in Article 2. If the special law makes a particular minimum criminal threat, then it must be accompanied by rules/guidelines for its application such as comparative problems between specific minimums and maximal in particular. There should be a unique pattern that should be followed in other Article formulations. For example in Article 2 paragraph (1) the comparison is 1: 4 while in Article 3 the comparison is 1:20. There should be a similar pattern applied in each Article in the formulation of specific minimum provisions.