Abstract
Law Number 16 of 2009 concerning General Provisions and Tax Procedures (UU KUP), regulates administrative sanctions and criminal sanctions. The KUP Law method does not yet regulate how to save the loss of state revenue because it does not regulate the implementation of criminal fines, the legal implications of different decisions that cause legal uncertainty, injustice and have not provided benefits, especially in an effort to collect taxes. The purpose of this paper is to find out, analyze, and find the urgency of regulating criminal sanctions for the deprivation of assets in tax crime. This study is normative legal research with a legislation approach, historical approach, comparative law approach, conceptual approach, and case approach. The legal materials used are primary and secondary legal materials. Analysis of legal material is done with a descriptive perspective. The results of this study indicate that the inclusion of fine sanctions in the KUP Act turns out to lead to different interpretations resulting in legal uncertainty and does not provide economic benefits for the state in law enforcement, because the sanctions for fines are not complemented by implementing sanctions in the form of additional criminal sanctions in the form of confiscation of assets belonging to the defendant or an act (maatregel) in the form of requiring improvement of corporate governance in accordance with good corporate governance or placement of a legal company, where an economic crime is committed under a certain period of time, so that in the future the KUP Act, additional sanctions or actions to strengthen / complete in the future criminal sanctions for fines.
Highlights
The existence of taxes as state revenue is very important for the life of the nation and state
Solihin (2018) who studies the Harmonization of Indonesian Taxation Sanctions with the Criminal Code in the Context of Developing Indonesian Tax Laws with a focus on the study of Criminal sanctions associated with sanctions in the Criminal Code, while this research discusses the deprivation of convicted assets to recover state revenue losses in criminal acts taxes especially from criminal fines
UU KUP as a material law, criminal sanctions in the form of asset confiscation are very important sanctions, because their essence is as an effort to recover losses on state income, which contains the intention as a reflection that the perpetrators of tax crimes are not entitled to enjoy personal benefits, and this is unfair, and is against the law and contrary to the value of social justice for all Indonesian people
Summary
The existence of taxes as state revenue is very important for the life of the nation and state. Soeparman (1993) who analyzed the Criminal Law Provisions in Law No 8 of 1983 concerning General Provisions and Tax Procedures with a focus on the application of administrative sanctions, while this study explored in more detail the aspect of appropriation of assets to recover losses on state revenues, especially from criminal fines ii. Solihin (2018) who studies the Harmonization of Indonesian Taxation Sanctions with the Criminal Code in the Context of Developing Indonesian Tax Laws with a focus on the study of Criminal sanctions associated with sanctions in the Criminal Code, while this research discusses the deprivation of convicted assets to recover state revenue losses in criminal acts taxes especially from criminal fines. The novelty in this study compared to previous research is to examine in depth the criminal sanctions of confiscation of assets in tax crimes as an effort to recover the loss of state income
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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
