Yuliati
Faculty of Law, Brawijaya University Malang, Indonesia

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

Criminal Penalties For Asset Confiscation In Corruption Cases: A Due Process Model Perspective Gatra Setya El Yanda; Yuliati; Fachrizal Affandi
YURISDIKSI : Jurnal Wacana Hukum dan Sains Vol. 22 No. 2 (2026): September in progress
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Merdeka University Surabaya, Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55173/yurisdiksi.v22i2.372

Abstract

Corruption is an extraordinary crime that causes state financial losses and hinders national development. Therefore, its handling is not sufficient only through the main punishment of imprisonment and fines, but also through the recovery of state assets. This study aims to analyze the construction of the criminal confiscation penalty as a substitute for state losses in corruption cases in Indonesia and the mechanism for imposing additional penalties of confiscation of assets based on the due process model. The research method used is normative juridical legal research with a statutory approach, a conceptual approach, and a case approach. Primary legal materials in the form of laws and regulations, court decisions, and secondary legal materials in the form of literature and scientific journals were analyzed qualitatively. The results of the study indicate that the criminal confiscation penalty is an additional penalty that has a strategic function to eliminate profits from crime, recover state losses, and provide a deterrent effect to perpetrators of corruption. The legal basis is found in the Corruption Eradication Law which allows for the confiscation of assets from corruption and other assets belonging to convicts to pay compensation. The mechanism for imposing additional penalties of asset confiscation must be implemented through the stages of investigation, prosecution, trial examination, judge's decision, and execution in a legal, proportional, and accountable manner. The due process model approach demands protection of the rights of the accused and third parties acting in good faith, so that asset confiscation is not carried out arbitrarily. Therefore, additional penalties of asset confiscation become an effective instrument in eradicating corruption when implemented based on the principles of legality, justice, proportionality, and legal certainty.
Juridical Implications of the Imposition of Substitute Imprisonment under the Attorney General Guideline Muhammad Fahmi Abdillah; Prija Djatmika; Yuliati
YURISDIKSI : Jurnal Wacana Hukum dan Sains Vol. 22 No. 2 (2026): September in progress
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Merdeka University Surabaya, Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55173/yurisdiksi.v22i2.378

Abstract

Corruption as an extraordinary crime causes state financial losses that have not been optimally recovered, particularly because convicted persons tend to choose substitute imprisonment rather than paying compensation. Although this mechanism has been regulated under Law Number 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law Number 20 of 2001, its implementation has resulted in a significant accumulation of unrecovered state losses. The issuance of Attorney General Guideline Number 1 of 2019 was intended to serve as a technical guideline for prosecution; however, it continues to raise juridical issues. This study aims to analyze the juridical implications of the implementation of the guideline and to formulate an ideal regulatory framework. The research employs a normative juridical method using statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches, which are analyzed prescriptively. The findings indicate the existence of legal uncertainty due to the absence of clear parameters for determining substitute imprisonment, low effectiveness resulting from its alternative nature, weak coercive force, and inconsistency in prosecutorial discretion. Therefore, a reformulation of the regulation is necessary by positioning compensation payment as a mandatory and cumulative sanction in order to optimize the recovery of state financial losses and strengthen legal certainty and consistency in prosecution.