Abstract
The research aims to analyze and find out the legal protection of third party-owned evidence in corruption cases at the prosecution stage. This research is descriptive with normative-juridical type. The approaches used were statutory, conceptual, and case approaches by using deductive and inductive reasoning. The results show that the presence of a third party in the prosecution trial can cut time in providing legal certainty regarding the legal status of the object claimed by the third party which is the object of confiscation. This provision eliminates pretrial attempts and challenges ( derden verstek ) against the confiscation of objects of confiscation. The legal status of the object of confiscation which is claimed by a third party is completed in one trial, the prosecution trial; the second is efficiency of case handling for proving the validity of the object of confiscation of evidence belonging to a third party occurs in just one prosecution hearing, there is no pretrial effort and resistance to objections after the decision. The third is avoid disparity in decisions. Separating the evidentiary process in the corruption court with the pretrial and civil proceedings (resistance from third parties or defendants) can result in disparities in decisions that confuse justice seekers. The fourth is avoid the practice of corruption. The process of proving the object of confiscation in one agenda of the prosecution session minimizes the chance of corruption (bribery) because the evidence trial focuses on the prosecution trial only. Keywords: Attorney; Corruption; Third Party-Owned Evidence; Prosecutor DOI: 10.7176/JLPG/102-10 Publication date: October 31 st 2020
Highlights
Much of the academic literature that aims to explain the occurrence of corruption is based on rational-choice assumptions – that is, individuals are assumed to be rational beings who act to maximise their self-interest.12 In turn, these strategic decisions shape the organisation of corruption
The presence of a third party in the prosecution trial can cut time in providing legal certainty regarding the legal status of the object claimed by the third party which is the object of confiscation
To provide legal protection to the confiscation object of third party which becomes evidence in the prosecution, it is important that a third party be present at the prosecution hearing
Summary
Much of the academic literature that aims to explain the occurrence of corruption is based on rational-choice assumptions – that is, individuals are assumed to be rational beings who act to maximise their self-interest. In turn, these strategic decisions shape the organisation of corruption. The Police, the Attorney, or the Corruption Eradication Commission confiscated the land This was done because the investigators already knew the origin or history of the land controlled by the third party. The response is likely not accepting or objecting to the decision It is not uncommon for a third party not to accept a verdict, because he feels that his rights have been confiscated for the State, while he has strong evidence of objects in the form of a piece of land possessed. Whereas the third party has a legal interest to explain and prove the rights regarding the origin of the object or asset which is the object of the confiscation This situation is one of the deficiencies in criminal procedural law, so that this problem is the main topic of this research (research gap)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call