<![CDATA[This study examines the divergent interpretations and applications of the additional penalty of restitution (uang pengganti) in corruption cases through a comparative analysis of the Angelina Sondakh decisions at the district court, appellate court, cassation, and judicial review levels. A dualism of interpretation emerges between viewing restitution as compensation for state financial losses and as a mechanism for confiscating illicit gains. The judex facti rejected imposing restitution on the ground that no state loss occurred in bribery and gratuity cases, while the judex juris at the cassation level construed restitution as an asset recovery instrument targeting unlawfully obtained benefits. These conflicting conceptual orientations produced significant sentencing disparities and revealed inconsistencies within the normative framework of the Anti-Corruption Law and Supreme Court Regulation No. 5/2014. The study finds that the lack of a clear normative purpose for restitution directly contributes to inconsistent judicial reasoning, thereby undermining legal certainty and the effectiveness of asset recovery. A clearer normative formulation—affirming restitution as an instrument for confiscating the proceeds of corruption—is required to achieve sentencing consistency and strengthen anti-corruption enforcement.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
