Implementation of Legal Protection for Third Parties with Good Faith in Corruption Court Decisions Regarding Replacement Money

Abstract

This study aims to determine and analyze the implementation of legal protection for third parties with good faith in corruption court decisions regarding replacement money. This study uses a sociological legal approach method that is descriptive analytical. The data used are primary data and secondary data obtained through interviews and literature studies, which are then analyzed qualitatively. Based on the research, it was concluded that (1) the implementation of legal protection for third parties in good faith in corruption court decisions related to replacement money, namely through the objection procedure as stipulated in Article 19 paragraph (2) of the Corruption Law, with the mechanism regulated in PERMA Number 2 of 2022, however, legal protection for these third parties is very limited, even injustice and violation of ownership rights to the assets of third parties occur, in fact, it still cannot fulfill the principles of legal certainty, justice, and legal benefits; (2) obstacles in the implementation of legal protection for third parties in good faith in corruption court decisions related to replacement money, including in terms of: (a) legal substance: (i) there is no clear definition of a third party in good faith; (ii) the regulation of objection procedures is not yet clearly regulated; and (iii) lack of implementing regulations; (b) legal structure: (i) discretion of the Judge's decision, (ii) injustice and violation of the rights to the assets of third parties by law enforcement officers, and (iii) law enforcers still have difficulty in sorting out assets from corruption and assets belonging to third parties in good faith; and (c) legal culture: (i) low legal awareness, (ii) social stigma, and (iii) negative perception of the law. Efforts to resolve these obstacles are in terms of: (a) legal substance: (i) providing a clear definition of a third party in good faith, (ii) clear regulations regarding objection procedures, and (iii) clarifying implementing regulations for law enforcement officers regarding objection procedures; (b) legal structure: (i) preparing guidelines for law enforcement for judges, (ii) simplifying objection procedures, and (iii) increasing the capacity of law enforcement; and (c) legal culture: (i) needing to organize legal education programs, (ii) needing to hold public education, and (iii) increasing transparency in the legal process.