This study aims to describe the powers of the prosecutor's office in eradicating and enforcing corruption in Indonesia. In answering these questions, this study uses a normative research methodology with a statutory approach. Based on the results of the research, it is known that the prosecutor's authority in law enforcement of corruption is divided into 3, namely investigation, investigation and prosecution. Related to the investigation into the prosecutor's authority, they are: a. collect information, b. collect data / documents, c. take other action according to responsible law. Regarding the investigation into the authority of the prosecutor's office, the objective of finding evidence is to prove the case concerned, with regard to prosecuting the authority of the prosecutor's office, including: a. Conduct pre-prosecution, b. Appoint the general prosecutor, c. Prepare an indictment, d. Conducting court hearings, e. Take legal action, f. Carry out the execution of court decisions that have permanent legal force. Looking at the direction of policies regarding corruption cases handled by the prosecutor's office and the authority given, as the author describes in detail at the beginning of the discussion, there is no authority related to wiretapping to increase the effectiveness of eradicating criminal acts of corruption that are handled by the prosecutor at both the central and regional levels. This is of course a contradiction with the data obtained by the author, wherein the prosecution of corruption crimes committed by the Corruption Eradication Commission investigators tends to be dominated by the tapping method to obtain strong evidence.