<![CDATA[This article examines the limits of the reversed burden of proof in money laundering offenses and its application in Decision Number 26/Pid.Sus-TPK/2024/PN Srg. The study focuses on the relationship between the defendant’s obligations under Articles 77 and 78 of Law Number 8 of 2010 and the Public Prosecutor’s obligation to prove the elements of the offense. This normative legal study employs statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. Primary and secondary legal materials are analyzed qualitatively, with the ratio decidendi of the decision serving as the principal object of analysis. This study proposes four limits of the reversed burden of proof—object, subject matter, subject, and legal consequence—as parameters for evaluating the limited and balanced application of Articles 77 and 78. The findings show that the reversed burden of proof under the Money Laundering Law is a special and limited mechanism, particularly concerning the origin of assets that have been connected to the case. In the decision under review, the Panel of Judges first established the corruption offense as the predicate offense and examined the defendant’s acts involving the assets, including deposits and the use of funds through several accounts, before applying Article 77. Nevertheless, the reasoning concerning the connection between the assets subject to proof and the respective burdens of the Public Prosecutor and the defendant requires clearer delineation so that the defendant’s inability to explain the origin of assets does not independently become a basis for conviction.]]>
