Abstract
There is often an intersection between general confiscation and criminal confiscation, one of which is caused by disharmony in confiscation arrangements between general confiscation and criminal confiscation. This study examines the comparison of the application of general and criminal confiscation law in bankruptcy cases in Indonesia and Australia and finds out whether the method of resolving general and criminal confiscation disputes according to Australian bankruptcy law can be applied in Indonesian bankruptcy law. Applying normative legal research, this study revealed that the resolution of disputes between vesting of property in bankruptcy law and confiscation orders in the law of proceeds of crime prioritizes legal certainty. This is evidenced by the provisions of Articles 6C, 58, 58A of the Bankruptcy Act 1966, which provide a detailed explanation of when and at what times there are exceptions to the application of vesting of property to the property of bankrupt debtors. The practice of applying dispute resolution between the institution of confiscation in bankruptcy law and confiscation for proceeds of crime according to bankruptcy law in Australia has been practiced several times by the Commercial Court in Indonesia.
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
