<![CDATA[Abstract Law Number 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code, effective since 2 January 2026, relocated the core corruption offenses into Articles 603-606 of the National Criminal Code without formulating an additional punishment equivalent to the restitution payment (uang pengganti) under Article 18 of the Anti-Corruption Law, risking the optimal recovery of state financial losses, a problem already evident from ICW data showing restitution executed by prosecutors throughout 2021 amounted to less than three percent of total state losses. This study analyzes the synchronization of restitution payment provisions between the two codes and examines how the reorientation of sentencing purposes affects asset recovery in corruption cases. It employs a descriptive-analytical normative juridical method using statutory and conceptual approaches. Findings show that although Article 18 is not among the provisions revoked, the absence of an equivalent instrument in Article 66's additional punishments and the prohibition of analogy under Article 1(2) create disharmony in its application to defendants charged under Articles 603-604. The discussion also reveals a normative irony: the general "compensation" substitution mechanism under Article 94 is more varied than the special restitution mechanism, which recognizes only substitute imprisonment. The novelty lies in identifying this missing bridging norm after recodification, and in arguing that the "restoring balance" principle under Article 51 can serve as a normative basis for reforming the restitution substitution mechanism, in line with the pending Asset Forfeiture Bill. Keywords : Asset Recovery, Corruption, National Criminal Code, Restitution Payment, Sentencing Reorientation]]>
