<![CDATA[Corruption entails not only criminal liability but also the recovery of state financial losses through asset tracing, freezing, seizure, confiscation, substitute-money enforcement, execution, and asset return. This study examines how these mechanisms are implemented at the North Sumatra High Prosecutor's Office and identifies normative, evidentiary, institutional, asset-management, and cross-jurisdictional constraints. It combines normative and empirical legal approaches through legislation, scholarly literature, available institutional materials, and interviews conducted in August 2026 with an official responsible for the relevant asset-recovery function. The findings show that asset recovery must be differentiated according to its legal basis: confiscation of assets connected to the offence, seizure as a procedural measure, and execution against a convicted person's property to satisfy the additional penalty of substitute-money payment. Implementation is constrained by concealment and transfer through third parties, evidentiary difficulties in linking property to the offence, limited asset-tracing capacity, depreciation of seized property, and the need for domestic and cross-border coordination. The article's specific contribution is to demonstrate that institutional effectiveness cannot be inferred from case volume alone, but must be assessed through the institution's legally grounded capacity to identify, secure, prove, execute, and return asset value to the state.]]>
