<![CDATA[ The concealment of assets derived from corruption through the use of nominees raises questions regarding the morality of such actions and the legitimacy of ownership over assets acquired via criminal conduct. This study aims to analyze the concealment of corruption-derived assets through nominees—drawing upon Immanuel Kant’s deontology as well as the legitimacy of asset possession and transfer, based on Robert Nozick’s entitlement theory, within the context of the Jiwasraya case. The research employs a normative legal methodology, utilizing case-based, conceptual, and statutory approaches. Legal materials are analyzed qualitatively through a prescriptive-analytical method, linking the legal facts of the Jiwasraya case with Kant’s principles of moral duty and Nozick’s theory of justice in holdings. The findings indicate that the use of nominees to obscure the origins of assets derived from corruption—and to evade accountability—violates the principles of universality and the treatment of human beings as ends in themselves, as posited in Kantian deontology. According to Nozick’s entitlement theory, the legitimacy of the possession and transfer of assets is determined by the history of their acquisition; assets proven to originate from criminal activity do not become legitimate simply by being registered under a nominee’s name. The principle of "justice in rectification of injustice" provides a basis for asset recovery as a corrective measure against historical injustices in ownership. Any assessment of a nominee’s role must necessarily take into account the individual’s level of knowledge and degree of involvement.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
