Criminal Policy on Forfeiture of Assets Resulting from Gratification in Cases Stopped by Law

Abstract

The Indonesian government has made various efforts to suppress the massive corruptive behavior in Indonesia, both through means of law enforcement and prevention, but this has not had a significant impact in reducing the crime rate of corruption and providing a deterrent effect to the corruptors, because every year data on handling cases of corruption crimes in Indonesia tends to increase. The pattern of combating corruption has changed, law enforcement officials no longer only pursue criminal offenders and imprison them (follow the suspect), but also carry out efforts to trace, confiscate and for feit all assets that are the proceeds and instruments of criminal acts (follow the money). Various obstacles arise in efforts to seize assets that are the proceeds or instruments of criminal acts, one of which is the absence of legal rules governing the mechanism for the seizure of assets resulting from gratification crimes in cases that are stopped by law. The method used in this research is normative legal research, using a statutory approach (statue approach) and Court Decisions. This reserach aims to examine and formulate an ideal criminal law policy in the seizure of confiscated objects in the form of assets of gratification suspects whose cases are stopped for the sake of law in the future. The results in this research show that asset seizure in the eradication of corruption currently still places asset seizure as an additional crime so that asset seizure is still based on the defendant's guilt (conviction based asset forfeiture), in addition to through the criminal mechanism of asset forfeiture can also be done through civil mechanisms with the concept of non-conviction based asset forfeiture, but there is no rule governing the asset forfeiture mechanism proceeds of gratification in cases that are stopped by law. The criminal policy of asset seizure in the future based on the Asset Forfeiture Bill related to Criminal Acts with the concept (non-conviction-based asset forfeiture) has clearly regulated the mechanism for the seizure of assets belonging to Suspects or Defendants who died, escaped, became permanently ill, or whose whereabouts are unknown, so as to overcome the legal vacuum in terms of seizure of assets resulting from gratification crimes in cases that are stopped by law.