I Investigation is the initial stage of the start of enforcement of criminal handling, even though the prosecutor\\\'s office is an authorized institution in the prosecution and enforcement of court decisions, in the case of corruption which is a criminal act which is an extraordinary criminal act or extra ordinary crime that requires special handling of the prosecutor authorized to conduct an investigation, the legal basis for the prosecutor\\\'s authority to conduct an investigation is contained in the criminal procedure code article 284 paragraph (2) which in its contents regulating if it is not regulated in this law, other rules apply, then in this case the authority of the prosecutor\\\'s office to conduct an investigation is in law number 31 of 1999 jo. law number 20 of 2001 and law number 16 of 2004 concerning the prosecutor\\\'s office of the republic of indonesia and law number 11 of 2021 concerning amendments to law number 16 of 2004 concerning the prosecutor\\\'s office of the republic of indonesia. if you look at the netherlands, where the legal system places the prosecutor\\\'s office in an inquisitorial structure but has different authority from its practice. the purpose of this paper is to compare the authority of prosecutors in indonesia and the netherlands in investigating corruption crimes, in terms of regulation and application. the research method in writing this research uses a normative research method with a comparative legal approach. the results obtained from this writing give the prosecutor\\\'s authority directly to the prosecutor\\\'s office in the investigation of corruption, in contrast to the dutch prosecutor\\\'s office which prioritizes collaboration and coordination between institutions such as prosecutors and the police under the control of the court. this research provides suggestions for the development of an investigation system in indonesia to make law enforcement officials in handling corruption to be independent, accountable, and effective in eradicating corruption.