Asset Recovery of Detrimental to The Finances of The State From Proceeds of Corruption in The Development of National Criminal Law System

Eri Satriana, Dewi Kania Sugiharti, Muhammad Ilham Satriana

Abstract


Asset Recovery resulting from corruption in Law 31/1999 in conjunction with Law 20/2001 is difficult, besides that Indonesia, which has ratified UNCAC 2003, is still experiencing difficulties resulting in a low amount of repayment of state financial losses compared to its own financial losses. Problems in asset recovery originate from Article 18 of Law 31/1999 in conjunction with Law 20/2001, which can only be done after a court decision has permanent legal force. UNCAC 2003 has the concept of non conviction base forfeiture (in brake system) to overcome these weaknesses. The formulation of optimizing punishment is generated by asset recovery with  an economic analysis of law approach using the time value of money as a determinant of calculation


Keywords: asset recovery; detrimental to the finances of the state; corruption; national criminal law system.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Toegarisman, M. Adi. “Konsep Kerugian Keuangan Negara dihubungkan dengan Pertanggungjawaban Pidana dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi” Disertasi Doktoral. Program Pascasarjana Program Studi Doktor (S3) Ilmu Hukum Universitas Padjadjaran. Bandung.

Ali, Mahrus. Penegakan Hukum Pidana Yang Optimal (Perspektif Analisis Ekonomi Atas Hukum). Jurnal Hukum No.2 Vol.15. Apryl.

Arjaya, B.G.M. Widipradnyana. (2016). Peran Vital Penelusuran Aset Guna Menentukan Besaran Pidana Tambahan Uang Pengganti Terhadap Koruptor. Jurnal Cita Hukum. Vol.4. No.1.

Atmasasmita, Romli. (1997). Prospek Kerjasama Regional/Internasional dalam Pemberantasan Money Laundering di Indonesia. Jurnal Padjadjaran, No. 1.

Barnes Jr, William L. Revenge on Utilitarianism: Renouncing A Comprehensive Economics Theory of Crime and Punishment. Indiana Law Journal. Vol. 74.

Bierschbach, Richard A. (2005). Overenforcement. Georgetown Law Journal. Vol. 93.

Cohen, Mark A. (2000). The Economics of Crime and Punishment: Implications for Sentencing of Economic Crime and New Technology Offences. George Mason Law Review. Vol. 9.

Eddyono, Supriyadi Widodo. (2010). Masa Depan Hukum Pengembalian Aset Kejahatan di Indonesia. Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia. Volume 07. No.04.

Friedman, David D. (1993). Should the Characteristics of Victims and Criminals Count? Payne v Tennessee and Two Views of Efficient Punishment. Boston College Law Review. Vol. 34.

------------------------- (1987). Law and Economics, in The New Palgrave. A dictionary Of Economics. London. Palgrave Macmillan. Vol 3.

Garoupa, Nuno dan Klerman, Daniel (2002). Optimal Law Enforcement with A Rent- Seeking Government. American Law and Economics Review. Vol. 4.

Haswandi. (2017). Pengembalian Aset Tindak Pidana Korupsi Pelaku Dan Ahli Warisnya Menurut Sistem Hukum Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan. Vol. 6 No. 1.

Kahan, Dan M. (1997). Social Influence, Social Meaning, and Deterrence. Virginia Law Review. Vol. 83.

Kornhauser, Lewis A. (2000). On Justifying Cost and Benefit Analysis. Journal of Legal Studies. Vol. 29.

Korobkin, Russel B. & Ulen, Thomas S. (2000). Law and Behavioral Science: Removing The Rationality Assumption from Law to Economics. California Law Review. Vol. 88.

Prakarsa, Aliyth & Yulia, Rena. (2017). Model Pengembalian Aset (Asset Recovery) Sebagai Alternatif Memulihkan Kerugian Negara Dalam Perkara Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Jurnal Hukum PRIORIS. Vol. 6 No. 1.

Posner, Richard A. (1998). Rational Choice, Behavioral Economics and The Law. Stanford Law Review. Vol. 50.

------------------------. (2000). Cost-Benefit Analysis: Legal, Economic, and Philosophical Perspectives. The Journal of Legal Studies. Vol. 29, No. 2.

Shavell, Steven. (1985). Criminal Law and the Optimal Use of Nonmonetary Sanction As Deterrence. Columbia Law Review. Vol. 85.

Miles, Thomas J. (2005). Empirical Economics and Study of Punishment and Crime. University of Chicago Legal Forum. Vol. 237.

Wiarti, July. (2017). Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture Sebagai Langkah Untuk Mengembalikan Kerugian Negara (Perspektif Analisis Ekonomi Terhadap Hukum). UIR Law Review. Volume 01. Nomor 01.

Cooter, Robert & Ullen, Thomas. (2004). Law and Economics. Boston: Pearson Wesley.

Ibrahim, Johnny. (2006). Teori dan Metodologi Penelitian Hukum Normatif. Malang: Bayumedia Publishing.

K.Shim, Jae & G.Siegel, Joel. (1987). Managerial Finance. New York: McGraw Hill Company.

Poernomo, Bambang. (1994). Asas-asas Hukum Pidana. Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia.

Utrecht, E. (1987). Hukum Pidana I. Surabaya: Pustaka Tinta Mas.

Kusuma, Hendra. (2017) Pendapatan Per Kapita RI Naik Jadi Rp 47,96 Juta/Tahun. Retrieved January 8, 2019. https://finance.detik.com/berita-ekonomi-bisnis/d-3564310/sri-mulyani-pendapatan-per-kapita-ri-naik-jadi-rp-4796-jutatahun.

Wikipedia. Indeks Persepsi Korupsi. Retrieved January 3, 2019. https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeks_Persepsi_Korupsi.

Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP)

Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata (KUH Perdata).

Undang-undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2003 tentang Keuangan Negara.

United Nations Convention Against Corruption Document (UNCAC) 2003.

Undang-undang No. 7 Tahun 2006 tentang Pengesahan United Nations Convention Against Corruption, 2003.

Undang-undang Nomor 40 Tahun 2007 Tentang Perseroan Terbatas.

Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 Tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 Tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20884/1.jdh.2019.19.2.2474

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.





JURNAL DINAMIKA HUKUM Indexed by :

 
Jurnal Dinamika Hukum
Faculty of Law, Universitas Jenderal SoedirmanCopyright of Jurnal Dinamika Hukum
Yustisia I Building, Room Number 111ISSN 2407-6562 (Online) ISSN 1410-0797 (Print)
Purwokerto, Central Java, Indonesia, 53122JDH is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License