<p><strong>ABSTRACT : </strong>In criminal law, in corruption case, in forensic accounting, and in auditing (investigative auditing), evidence has important role. As we know that <br>auditing can be regarded as a systematic process to obtain and evaluate evidence in frame of comparing condition with specific criteria. Evidence in <br>common must be admissible and relevant so that it can properly be received by a court as a matter of law or it relates to the facts. <br>Based on article 184 (1) KUHAP, the tools of evidence include : (a). testimony of witness; (b). expert opinion; (c). written documents; (d). guidances; <br>and (e). confessions evidence. Arens et.al. (2011 : 158) classify audit evidence into 8 categories such as (a). physical examination; (b). confirmation evidence; <br>(c). documentation evidence; (d). analytical procedures; (e). inquiry; (f). recalculation; (g). reperformance; and (h). observation. <br>In relation to the KUHAP, audit evidences should be used as references to the tools of evidence in KUHAP. The roles of audit evidences as follows : (1). <br>physical examination can be used as testimony of witness and confessions evidence; (2). confirmation evidence can be used as written documents, <br>testimony evidence and confessions evidence; (3). documentation evidence can be used as written documents, testimony of witness and expert opinion; (4). analytical procedures can be developed as expert opinion; (5). inquiry can be used as testimony of witness and confessions evidence; (6). recalculation can be developed as written documents; (7). reperformance can be developed as written documents; and (8). observation due to obtaining from presumption, can not be used as legal evidence.</p>