THE INDONESIAN ARRANGEMENT OF ASSET FORFEITURE DRAFT AS REFORM EFFORTS IN RECOVERING STATE LOSSES DUE TO CORRUPTION: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF UNITED STATES CODE
Universitas Pamulang
Universitas Islam Bandung
Universitas Pamulang
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56943/jcj.v3i2.509Corruption remains a pervasive challenge in Indonesia, undermining governance, economic development, and social justice. The Draft Law on Asset Forfeiture in Indonesia is an effort in reform to restore state losses caused by the crime of corruption. This is a comparative legal research which aims to compare the Draft Asset Forfeiture Law with the United States Code as a reference to assess compatibility with human rights. The findings of this research indicate that despite the fact that there have been numerous previous efforts and procedures from law enforcement to return assets under the criminal procedure law and other regulations, the judicial system is still insufficient to effectively address potential state financial losses due to the rampant corruption crimes in Indonesia. The Asset Forfeiture system, which shares similarities with the Asset Forfeiture principle in the U.S.C., has the potential to be abused and violates human rights and the basic Criminal Law principle of presumption of innocence, both in Indonesia and the United States. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the Draft Law on Asset Forfeiture with due regard to Human Rights, by placing the perpetrators of corruption on the Principle of the Highest Balanced Probability, and still adhering to the principles of the criminal process in accordance with basic criminal law.
Keywords: Corruption Draft Law State Financial Losses United States Code
Anandya, Diky, and Lalola Ester. Laporan Hasil Pemantauan Tren Penindakan Kasus Korupsi Tahun 2022. Indonesia Corruption Watch, 2023. https://antikorupsi.org/sites/default/files/dokumen/Narasi%20Laporan%20Tren%20Penindakan%20Korupsi%20Tahun%202022.pdf.
Gazali, Rahman, and La Jamaa. “Asas Pembuktian Terbalik Dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi (Perspektif Hukum Pidana Indonesia Dan Hukum Pidana Islam.” TAHKIM: Jurnal Hukum dan Syariah 15, no. 2 (2022): 235–254.
Government, United States. Title 18 United States Code Part I Chapter 46 § 981, 1988. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter46&edition=prelim#:~:text=%C2%A7981.,property%20traceable%20to%20such%20property.
———. Title 18 United States Code Part I Chapter 46 § 982, 1988. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter46&edition=prelim#:~:text=%C2%A7981.,property%20traceable%20to%20such%20property.
ICW, Divisi Hukum dan Monitoring Peradilan. Laporan Hasil Pemantauan Tren Penindakan Korupsi Tahun 2022, 2023. https://antikorupsi.org/id/tren-penindakan-kasus-korupsi-tahun-2022.
Indonesia, Pemerintah Pusat. Pasal 5 Ayat (1) Rancangan Undang-Undang Perampasan Aset Tindak Pidana, 2017.
———. Pasal 5 Ayat (2) Rancangan Undang-Undang Perampasan Aset Tindak Pidana, 2017.
———. Pasal 7 Rancangan Undang-Undang Perampasan Aset Tindak Pidana, 2017.
———. Pasal 37 Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 Tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 Tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Jakarta, 2001. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/44900/uu-no-20-tahun-2001.
———. Pasal 37A Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 Tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 Tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Jakarta, 2001. https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/44900/uu-no-20-tahun-2001.
Institute, Legal Information. “Civil Forfeiture.” Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_forfeiture.
Justice, United States Department of. “Types of Federal Forfeiture.” Last modified 2023. https://www.justice.gov/afp/types-federal-forfeiture.
Kudratov, Manuchehr, and Denis Pechegin. “Towards the German Doctrine Interpretation and Criticism of the Construct of Comparative Criminal Law Studies.” Russian Journal of Legal Studies (Moscow) 8, no. 4 (2021): 55–62.
Miarsa, Fajar Rachmad Dwi, Hardi Anugrah Santoso, Sugiarto Raharjo Japar, Muhamad Saifudin, and Nur Qoilun. “Comparative Study of the Good Faith Concept between Indonesia and the Netherlands in Civil Law.” YURIS: Journal of Court & Justice 3, no. 1 (2024).
Mulyadi, Lilik. “Asas Pembalikan Beban Pembuktian Terhadap Tindak Pidana Korupsi Dalam Sistem Hukum Pidana Indonesia Pasca Konvensi Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa Anti Korupsi 2003.” Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan 4, no. 1 (March 31, 2015): 101.
Pangaribuan, Aristo. “Innocent Until Presented.” Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan 50, no. 2 (September 28, 2020): 344.
Sagita, Afrianto. “Pembalikan Beban Pembuktian Sebagai Kebijakan Hukum Pidana Dalam Undang-Undang Tindak Pidana Korupsi.” Jurnal Hukum Respublica 17, no. 1 (November 11, 2017): 21–43.
Saputra, Refki. “Tantangan Penerapan Perampasan Aset Tanpa Tuntutan Pidana (Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture) Dalam RUU Perampasan Aset Di Indonesia.” Integritas: Jurnal Antikorupsi 3, no. 1 (2017): 115–130.
Setiadi, Wicipto. “Korupsi Di Indonesia Penyebab, Hambatan, Solusi Dan Regulasi.” Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia 15, no. 3 (2018).
Soeskandi, Hari, and Setia Sekarwati. “Pembuktian Terbalik Dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi.” Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi 2, no. 11 (2021): 1942–1950.
Soesman, Diandra Ayasha, and Rizanizarli Rizanizarli. “Penolakan Tuntutan Pidana Pembayaran Uang Pengganti Oleh Hakim Terhadap Tindak Pidana Korupsi.” Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Bidang Hukum Pidana 2, no. 2 (2018): 430–440.
Union, American Civil Liberties. “Asset Forfeiture Abuse.” https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/asset-forfeiture-abuse.
Putusan Pengadilan Tindak Pidana Korupsi Pada Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat Nomor 67/Pid.Sus-TPK/2023/PNJkt.Pst, 2023.
Putusan Pengadilan Tindak Pidana Korupsi Pada Pengadilan Negeri Padang Kelas 1A Nomor 1/Pid.Sus-TPK/2023/PN Pdg, 2023.
