Abstract
This study aims to examine the reasons why public prosecutors often proceed to the trial stage in many criminal tax cases. This study outlines the concept of discontinuing criminal tax cases based on state revenue through a reform approach to the criminal tax justice system. This study is a normative legal study. The results of the study show that the reasons prosecutors pursue cases even though the defendants have paid their tax debts and fines are: First, Attorney General's Guideline Number 2 of 2019 concerning Criminal Prosecution of Tax Cases. Second, the KUP Law does not regulate the termination of tax case prosecutions. Third, public prosecutors do not have the authority to terminate tax case prosecutions. Fourth, the Attorney General's Office Law does not clearly regulate cases that can be terminated in the public interest. The concept of discontinuing criminal prosecution of tax cases in the interests of state revenue for the renewal of the judicial system can be implemented in the following ways: First, after the indictment and case files have been transferred, the public prosecutor can negotiate with the defendant to ascertain whether the defendant regrets their actions. Second, if the defendant admits their guilt, the public prosecutor offers to return the taxes and fines owed. Third, if the defendant repays the taxes and tax penalties owed, the public prosecutor submits a request to the judge for termination of prosecution. Fourth, if the panel of judges approves, the public prosecutor prepares and submits a Letter of Termination of Prosecution to be signed by the Head of the District Attorney's Office.