Konsep menyalahgunakan kewenangan belum diatur secara komprehensif dalam hukum pidana, namun telah diatur secara komprehensif dalam UU Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 tentang Administrasi Pemerintahan (UU AP). Seringkali penjatuhan sanski tindak pidana korupsi langsung dikenakan kepada Pejabat Pemerintahan yang mengeluarkan suatu diskresi karena dianggap menyalahgunakan kewenangan yang merugikan keuangan negara tanpa memperhatikan ketentuan Pasal 21 UU AP. Hal ini dapat terlihat pada pengulangan pengenaan pidana korupsi pada kasus diskresi Pejabat Bank Indonesia yang serupa yakni kasus BLBI dan Kasus Bank Century. Berdasarkan permasalahan tersebut maka penelitian ini menganalisis mengenai apakah Pejabat BI dalam membuat suatu keputusan yang berdampak pada ekonomi nasional otomatis dapat dikenakan sanksi tindak pidana korupsi pengenaan sanksi administrasi, atau cukup pengenaan sanksi sesuai kondisi-kondisi dan perbuatan yang dilarang oleh Undang-Undang Nomor 23 Tahun 1999 tentang Bank Indonesia (UU BI). Penelitian ini dilakukan dengan metode normatif yuridis. Secara singkat hasil penelitian tesis in menyimpulkan bahwa, kebijakan Pejabat BI merupakan diskresi apabila memenuhi unsur diskresi UU AP, diskresi yang tergolong tindak pidana apabila terbukti adanya unsur suap, ancaman dan tipu msulihat, dan pertanggungjawaban pidana Pejabat BI lebih tepat dikenakan ketentuan pidana pada UU BI berdasarkan asas lex specialis sitematis.

---

The concept of abusing authority has not been comprehensively regulated in criminal law, but has been comprehensively regulated in Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration (UU AP). Frequently, the imposition of penalties for criminal acts of corruption is directly imposed on Government Officials who issue a discretion because they are considered to have abused their authority which is detrimental to state finances without regard to the provisions of Article 21 of the UU AP. This can be seen in the repetition of the imposition of corruption in the similarity discretionary cases Bank Indonesia’s officials, those are the BLBI case and the Century Bank case. Based on these problems, this study analyzes whether BI officials in making decisions that have an impact on the national economy can automatically imposed criminal penalties for corruption, administrative penalties, or simply imposed penalties according to conditions and actions prohibited by Law Number 23 Year 1999 concerning Bank Indonesia (UU BI). This research was conducted with a juridical normative method. In short, the results of this thesis research conclude that, BI Officials' policies are discretionary if they meet the discretionary elements of the UU AP, discretion is classified as a criminal act if it is proven that there are elements of bribery, threats and deception, and criminal liability BI’s Officials are more appropriately subject to criminal provisions in the UU BI, based on the principle of lex specialis systematic.