Implementation of Confiscation of Beneficial Owner Assets in Money Laundering Cases (Case Study of Ratu Atut Chosyiah)

Rahmad Ridho, Arpangi Arpangi

Abstract


Abstract. In the national legal framework, the concept of discussion on money laundering was first formulated and enforced in Law Number 15 of 2002 concerning the Crime of Money Laundering. This law was then updated and revised again in Law Number 25 of 2003. The existence of this law is expected by the State (government) to end money laundering, strengthen law enforcement considering the inadequate human resources involved in money laundering cases, and take a new approach to international collaboration in increasingly complex money laundering cases. Law Number 15 of 2002 concerning Money Laundering Crimes explicitly states that money that is laundered generally comes from criminal acts, including corruption as one of its main sources. The perpetrators will try to keep the proceeds of the crime away from their original source and camouflage them in the form of assets that appear legal. Furthermore, money laundering is defined as a set of procedures carried out to change the status of money from criminal acts-which is legally considered illegitimate or haram-into clean and acceptable income according to applicable laws. In practice, asset forfeiture not only functions as a repressive tool, but also as a preventive measure to prevent the shifting or escape of assets to other parties. Unfortunately, until now, the Draft Law on Asset Confiscation which is expected to provide a strong legal basis, is still stuck on the legislator's desk and has not been a priority in the National Legislation Program (Prolegnas).

Keywords


Keywords: Application; Confiscation; Laundering; Money.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Journals:

Amalia, R (2016), Pertanggungjawaban korporasi dalam tindak pidana pencucian uang menurut hukum Islam. Jurnal Al Jinayah, 2, December).

Anthony Tiono & R. Arja Sadjiarto (2013), “Penentuan Beneficial Owner Untuk Mencegah Penyalahgunaan Perjanjian Penghindaran Pajak Berganda”, Tax and Accounting Review, Vol.3, No.2.

Buletin Statistik APUPPT Vol. 11, No. 9 - Edisi September 2023

Fuadi, Gumilang; Putri, Windy Virdinia; Raharjo, & Trisno (2024). Tinjauan Perampasan Aset dalam Tindak Pidana Pencucian Uang dari Perspektif Keadilan. Jurnal Penegakan Hukum dan Keadilan.

Naylor, R. T. (2014). The Role of Financial Intelligence Units in Countering Financial Crimes. The Journal of Financial Crime, 21(3).

Saputro, Heri Joko; Chandra, & Tofik Yanuar (2021). Urgensi Pemulihan Kerugian Keuangan Negara Melalui Tindakan Pemblokiran Dan Perampasan Asset Sebagai Strategi Penegakan Hukum Korupsi. Mizan: Journal of Islamic Law.

Sudirman, L., & Feronica. (2011). Pembuktian pertanggungjawaban pidana lingkungan & korupsi korporasi di Indonesia & Singapura. Jurnal Mimbar Hukum, 23 (2).

Books:

Al-Ghazali, Abu Hamid. (2005). Ihya Ulumuddin, Juz II. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyyah.

Amiruddin & Zainal Asikin (2012), Introduction to Legal Research Methods, Jakarta : Raja Grafindo Persada.

Budiarjo, D. (2020). Regulasi Beneficial Ownership di Indonesia: Analisis Perkembangan dan Tantangannya. Jurnal Hukum Bisnis, 28(2).

F. Zakirfan (2018), Peranan Penyidik dalam Penyidikan Tindak Pidana Pencucian Uang yang Dilakukan oleh Travel Umroh (Studi Kasus First Travel), (Tesis, tidak diterbitkan).

FATF. (2012). International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism & Proliferation. Paris: FATF/OECD.

FATF. (2018). The Role of Beneficial Ownership Transparency in Preventing Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing. Financial Action Task Force.

Financial Action Task Force (FATF). (2023). Guidance on Beneficial Ownership.

Indonesia Corruption Watch. (2014). Laporan Investigasi Dugaan Penguasaan Proyek oleh Dinasti Atut di Provinsi Banten dan Kementerian PU. Jakarta: ICW.

Moeljatno (2015), Asas-Asas Hukum Pidana, (Jakarta: Rineka Cipta).

Moeljatno, Delik-delik Percobaan dan Delik-delik Penyertaan, (Jakarta: PT Bina Aksara, 1985).

Ramelan. et. Al (2008), Panduan untuk Jaksa Penuntut Umum Indonesia dalam Penanganan Harta Hasil Perolehan Kejahatan, Indonesia-Australia Legal Development facility, Jakarta.

Sagala, R. (2020). Tantangan Penegakan Hukum dalam Pencucian Uang di Indonesia. Jakarta: Penerbit Hukum.

Saputro & Heri Joko.

Soedarto, Hukum dan Hukum Pidana, (Bandung: Alumni, 1977).

Soeryono Soekarto (1984), introduction to legal research. (Jakarta: UI Press), p. 20.

Theodore S. Greenberg (2009), Stolen Asset Recovery, A Good Practices Guide for Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture, The World Bank & UNODC, Washington D.C.

Transparency International UK. (2019). At Your Service: Investigating How UK Businesses and Institutions Help Corrupt Individuals Launder Their Money and Reputations. London: TI-UK

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2020). Asset Recovery Handbook: A Guide for Practitioners (2nd ed.). Washington DC: StAR Initiative, World Bank Group

United Nations. (2003). United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC).

UNODC dan Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi RI (2020), Buku Panduan Investigasi Mengenali Pemilik Manfaat (Beneficial Ownership) Dalam Kasus Tindak Pidana Korupsi (Jakarta: Direktorat Pembinaan Kerja Antar Komisi dan Instansi KPK), 2.

Yunus Husein (2019), Penjelasan Hukum Tentang Perampasan Aset Tanpa Pemidanaan Dalam Perkara Tindak Pidana Korupsi, Jakarta : Pusat Studi Hukum dan Kebijakan & Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan Hukum dan Peradilan Mahkamah Agung RI.

Internet:

Abdul Rosyad, perampasan-aset-cukup-putusan-hakim-pengadilan-negeri, http:// www.hukumonline. com/berita/ baca/lt51a366 c135a9a/. accessed on 30 April 2025.

International Consortium of Investigative Journalist. “Pandora Papers: An Offshore Data Tsunami”.https://www.icij.org/investigations/pandora-papers/about-pandora-papers-leak-dataset/, (accessed on 30 April 2025) .

Regulation:

Article 1 number 3 of the Criminal Asset Confiscation Bill: Criminal Asset Confiscation, hereinafter referred to as Asset Confiscation, is a legal action taken by the state to confiscate Criminal Assets based on a court decision that has permanent legal force without being based on the punishment of the perpetrator.

Article 12 of UN-CATOC states that Member States shall adopt similar measures within their domestic legal systems towards the greatest possible development as necessary to enable the confiscation of: (a)

Article 54 number 1. letter (c) UNCAC 2003 firmly asks countries: "Consider taking such measures as may be necessary to allow confiscation of such property without a criminal conviction in cases in which the offender cannot be prosecuted by reason of death, flight or absence or in other appropriate cases"

Article 67 paragraph (2) of the TPPU Law: In the event that the alleged perpetrator of the crime is not found within 30 (thirty) days, the investigator may submit an application to the district court to decide that the assets are state assets or returned to the entitled party.

Asset confiscation in the Criminal Code is known in Article 66 with the term confiscation of certain goods. In that context, asset confiscation is a form of additional punishment that can be imposed on perpetrators of criminal acts.

Confiscation of assets according to this law can be interpreted as confiscation as regulated in Article 1 number 16 of the Criminal Procedure Code or confiscated for the benefit of the state as regulated in Article 194 paragraph

Considerations of Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning amendments to Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption.

In Article 54 number 1 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption 2003 and Article 12 of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crimes.

Proceeds of crime derived from offences covered by this Convention or property values associated with such proceeds; and (b) Property, equipment or other means used in or intended for use in an offence covered by this Convention.

Recommendation No. 3 FATF states "Countries may consider adopting measures that allow such proceeds or instrumentalities to be confiscated without requiring a criminal conviction, or which require an offender to demonstrate the lawful origin of the property alleged to be liable to confiscation, to the extent that such a requirement is consistent with the principles of their domestic law"




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30659/jhku.v20i2.46189

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Jurnal Hukum Khairu Ummah Indexed by :

google_scholar
Jurnal Hukum Khaira Ummah
   
Faculty of Law, UnissulaCopyright of Jurnal Hukum Khaira Ummah
Jalan Kaligawe Raya KM.4, Terboyo Kulon, Genuk,

ISSN ( 1907-3119 )

e-ISSN ( 2988-3334 )

Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia, 50112