<![CDATA[The entry into force of Law Number 1 of 2023 on the Indonesian Penal Code (KUHP) on 2 January 2026 has raised a new legal problem in combating money laundering originating from corruption. Article 603 of the new KUHP formulates the corruption offense differently from Law Number 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law Number 20 of 2001 on the Eradication of Corruption Crimes (Anti-Corruption Law), while Law Number 8 of 2010 on the Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering (AML Law) explicitly designates corruption as a predicate crime. This normative inconsistency risks generating legal uncertainty in determining the governing norm for the element of “proceeds of crime” in money laundering cases. This study aims to analyze the normative relationship between Article 603 of the new KUHP and the AML Law following the Code’s entry into force, and its implications for the construction of corruption as a predicate crime in law enforcement practice. The study employs a normative legal method using statutory, conceptual, and illustrative case approaches. The findings indicate that the Anti-Corruption Law’s status as lex specialis is formally preserved through the Code’s transitional provisions, yet the textual disharmony between the two norms creates a risk of divergent interpretation in indictments and court decisions regarding which provision governs the predicate offense. The article recommends legislative clarification of the relationship between Article 603 and the Anti-Corruption Law, and identifies the ongoing 2026 deliberation of the Asset Forfeiture Bill as a strategic momentum for synchronization.]]>
