Confiscation of Personal Assets of Corruption Defendants in a Positive Legal Perspective
Abstract
One-of-a-kind efforts to make the losses state’s financial incurred by the State due to corrupt activities, is through the confiscation of the Defendant’s assets. Later it may subsequently be utilized for a form of monetary payment in lieu of State losses charged to the Defendant. On the grounds of payment of money in lieu of State losses, confiscation of the Defendant’s personal assets that had nothing to do with corruption was then carried out. The research’s main eligibility is to find out how significance proof is involved due to tribunal mechanism, as in the safetymeasureness of the defendant given right and assets as being regulated for evidences in the tipikor case. The researcher’s study applied juridical normative method employing statutory and conceptual pathways. Secondly, layered information was gathered from observation and papers, in order to ensure the quality. According to the researcher’s findings, the purpose of headlining deposition in tribunal is to support the proof of the litigant’s motion, incapable of assuring the sentence’s delivery. There is a guarantee and protection of property rights in the Indonesian constitutional written law 1945 (28H) par. (4). It demonstrates the litigant’s possession of their property being safeguarded by the state, which had unassociated an elicit act of graft as property sheltered from confiscation in the court process. Unlike the personal property of the litigant, if is employed in an unlawful conduct as graft itself, the belongings shall be seized within the tribunal proceedings.
Keywords: protection, asset, evidence, confiscation
References
[1] Suhartoyo, Arguments for reversal of the burden of proof as a priority method in the eradiction of corruption and moneyl aundering, Depok: Rajawali pers, 2019, p. 2.
[2] Saputra R. corporate criminal responsibility in corruption (a from of corruption that harms state finances related to art. 2 par. (1) of The PTPK Law). Cita Hukum. 2015;3(2):270.
[3] Yanuar PM. Return of Corrupt assets: bassed on the 2003 UN Convention againts corruption in the Indonesia Legal system, Bandung: PT. Alumni, 2007, p. 51.
[4] Yanuar PM. Return of corupt assets: based on the 2003 UN convention againts corruption in the Indonesia legal system, Bandung: PT.Alumni, 2007, p. 78.
[5] Maheka A. Recognizing and eradicating corruption. Jakarta: KPK; 2012.
[6] M. A. T. Yudha Mustajab, “substitute money as an alternative to state losses in corruption criminal cases,” Restorative justice, Vols. II„ no. No. 1, p. 55, 2018.
[7] Suhariyanto B. Restorative justice in the punishment of corporations perpetrating corruption for the optimization of state loses. Rechtvinding. 2016;v(3):421.
[8] Ismansyah, “Application and implemantation of substitute money crime in corruption crimes,”. Demokrasi. 2007;VI(2):44.
[9] “Polri Saves state assets 1.5 T fromcorruption cases during 2022,” https://news.detik.com, 12 April 2022.
[10] “Attorney General of the Republic of the Indonesia handles corruption that harms the state 33.09 T throught 2022,” http://newsrepublika.co.id, 12 April 2022.
[11] “KPK in 2022 succeeded in depositing state losses of IDR 575.74 billion,” http://news.beritasatu.com, 1 April 2022.
[12] E. l. Kholis, paymen of subtitute money in corruption cases, Jakarta: solusi publishing, April 2010, p. 15.
[13] P. m. Marzuki, legal research, Jakarta: kencana, 2021.
[14] Muhaimmin, Legal Research Methods. Mataram: Mataram University Press; 2020.
[15] Eka Nam Sihombing CH. Legal Research. Malang: Setara Press; 2022.
[16] Sunggono B. Legal Resourch Methods. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada; 2005.
[17] Hamzah A. Indonesia criminal procedure Law. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika; 2006. p. 254.
[18] Irsan K. Criminal Procedure Law. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika; 2007. p. 91.
[19] Afish RN. Evidence in Criminal Proceding. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika; 1989. p. 22.
[20] in. KUHAP and KUHP. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika; 2013.
[21] Musahib AR. “Return of state finance from corruption,” vol. 3, no. No. 1, p. 2, 2015
[22] Ali M. Theory and practice of corruption criminal. Yogyakarta: UII Press; 2013. p. 84.
[23] “Aset.” in Big dictionary indonesia, Jakarta, Language center of the Ministry of national education, 2008.
[24] D. S. Intellectual Property rights. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika; 2015. p. 4.
[25] Levi M. Tracing and recovering the proceeds of crime. Wales Uk, Tblisi, georgia. Cardif University; 2014. p. 17.
[26] Hiariej EO. “Reverse proof in the return of assets of Corruption crimes,” Yogyakarta, Innaougural speech of Professor at the faculty of Law,Gadjah Mada University, 30 Januari 2012.
[27] Sabon MB. Human Rights. Jakarta: Atmajaya University; 2014. p. 1.
[28] Supardi, “Expropriation of property resulting from corruption of the prefective of just criminal las. Jakarta: Kencana; 2014. p. 65.
[29] Purwanti M. “State Obligations and Responsibilities in the Fulfillment of Human Rights,” BPHN, https://lsc.bphn.go.id/artikel?id=365, accessed March 8, 2022.
[30] Nasutian BJ. “State of law and Human rights,” in Cet 3rd, Bandung, Mandar maju, 2014, p. 258.
[31] Mertokusumo S. Knowing the las of an Introduction. Yogyakarta: Liberty; 1996. p. 145.
[32] Bayuaji R. Legal principles of the seizure of corrupt assets in the perspective of money laundering. Surabaya: Laksbang Justitia; 2019. p. 255.
[33] Prasetyo T. Dignified Justice from a Legal Theory Perspective. Bandung: Nusa Media; 2015. p. 109.
[34] Bayuaji R. Legal principles of the seizure of corrupt assets in the perspective of money laundering. Surabaya: Laksbang Justitia; 2019. p. 256.
[35] Widyawati A, Wijayanto I, Latifiani D, Ra’uf AS, Rosana AS, Widyawati A. Assistance and Establishment of an Anti-Corruption Legal Clinic in Puguh Village, Boja District, Kendal Regency. J. Dedik. Huk. 2021 Aug;1(2):164–77.