2024/01/01 by Johansen Christian Hutabarat, I Gusti Ayu Ketut Rachmi Handayani · 1 voice
Social Sciences · #Indonesian Legal and Regulatory Studies #Legal Studies and Policies #Legal and Policy Analysis in Indonesia
paper · pdf · doi:10.2991/978-2-38476-315-3_55
openalex publication_date 2024/01/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/04
Addressing corruption, which is seen as an egregious offense, necessitates a thorough and effective strategy.Corruption not only undermines public finances but also infringes upon the social and economic rights of the people.The regulation of asset seizure in relation to corruption crimes is stipulated in Article 18, Article 19, Article 38, and Article 38B of Law Number 20 of 2001, which pertains to amendments made to Law Number 31 of 1999, focusing on the eradication of corruption crimes.This study assesses the legal measures concerning the seizure of assets acquired through corrupt practices by the Attorney General's Office of the Republic of Indonesia, with the aim of recovering financial losses incurred by the state.The research methodology employed is a normative legal approach, utilizing conceptual analysis to evaluate the efficacy and efficiency of asset seizure.The research demonstrates that the Attorney General's Office assumes a strategic function within the criminal justice system, specifically in the management and implementation of court rulings.Nevertheless, difficulties arise when the seized assets are inadequate to compensate for the financial losses incurred by the state as a result of corruption.The research findings emphasize the necessity of implementing supportive rules for asset seizure, which should include more stringent criminal measures to enhance the prevention and elimination of corruption.Cost-benefit analysis is employed to assess the effectiveness of asset confiscation, guaranteeing that the procedure yields optimal advantages for the society and minimizes overall state losses.The research findings highlight the significance of implementing a thorough legislative framework, streamlined asset confiscation procedures, and uniform sentencing methods to effectively combat corruption.Suggestions encompass enhancing asset recovery procedures, fine-tuning sentencing rules, and incorporating cost-benefit analysis into policy development to maximize the effectiveness of anticorruption endeavors.