This study aims to analyze the Implementation of the Substitution of Substitute Money in the Corruption Crime that Has More Than 1 (One) Person) and the Formulation Policy for Paying for Substitution of Corruption Crimes that Do More Than One Person in the Future.

This thesis uses a method of normative research that is prescriptive because it focuses on norm research in terms of prioritizing legal material in the form of library material which essentially examines legal principles, systematic law, and legal synchronization by persecuting them, using a statutory approach ( statute aproach) and conceptual approach (conseptual aproach).

The results of this study are the payment of substitute money with more than one person who is the first model by assigning joint responsibility, while the second model is proportionally charged. Referring to the joint concept, the responsibility in the context of the substitution of money can be categorized as passive jointness, in which the country is in the position of a creditor and the defendants are debtors. This means that if the state through the panel of judges has handed down criminal compensation in return jointly to more than one defendant, each of them has an obligation to fulfill the sentence while proforsional is the imposition of criminal substitute money in which the panel of judges definitively determines how much the burden each defendant and in replacement money through the Supreme Court Regulation No. 5 of 2014 it is filled with a legal vacuum against these substitutes. In doctrine and the law of substitute money in criminal acts of corruption judges are not obliged to commit an additional criminal offense, even though with regard to substitute money here in criminal acts of corruption is an additional crime which is one effective way of restoring state finances.

Keywords: Crime, Replacement Money, & Corruption.