<![CDATA[Replacement money is an additional criminal sanction designed to restore state financial losses caused by corruption, yet its execution often stalls between the court verdict and actual recovery. The research gap is that prior studies examine this sanction mostly normatively or in general terms, without tracing how district prosecutors handle cases with divergent outcomes, including the status of confiscated property after full payment. This study analyses the execution of replacement money, its obstacles, and the prosecutor's optimisation efforts in the jurisdiction of the West Pasaman District Prosecutor's Office. Using socio-legal research with a descriptive design, it examines three final court decisions, execution documents, and a semi-structured interview with the executing prosecutor, analysed qualitatively. The results show that execution follows Article 18 of the Anti-Corruption Law but remains suboptimal: one case achieved full recovery, one ended in subsidiary imprisonment because the convict lacked executable assets, and one left a confiscated vehicle in legal uncertainty after cash settlement. The novelty of this study is showing that asset blocking from the investigation stage is the most effective compliance lever, while delayed handling of confiscated property creates a risk of over-execution that current technical guidelines have not fully resolved.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
