The repository administrator has not yet configured an RDF license.
PERAMPASAN ASET DALAM RANGKA ASSET RECOVERY ATAS TINDAK PIDANA PENCUCIAN UANG (ANALISIS UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 8 TAHUN 2010 TENTANG PENCEGAHAN DAN PEMBERANTASAN TINDAK PIDANA PENCUCIAN UANG)
Sustainable development, besides having a positive impact on achieving people's welfare, also has a negative impact in the form of the development of various types of crimes with the aim of achieving economic benefits, one of which is Money Laundering. Eradicating money laundering has two categories: first, giving punishment against the perpetrator, and second, confiscating assets for asset recovery. This study was conducted by examining the phenomena of eradicating Money Laundering related to the phenomena of confiscating assets for asset recovery as a step considered the most effective to eradicate Money Laundering In Indonesia, especially in Act Number 8 of 2010 concerning the Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering and comparing asset confiscation schemes in Philippine and Netherland. This study was a juridical normative study. It used library materials and a secondary database to find the regulations of asset confiscation in Money Laundering in Indonesia using the statute approach and comparative approach. The data obtained were analyzed using the descriptive-analytical method. The theoretical framework used to analyze problems included the legal system and comparative law. The results of the study, according to analysis, concluded that first, the regulations of asset confiscation for asset recovery in money laundering in Indonesia do not fully comply with The Eight Principles of Legality Lon L. Fuller because the problems lie in the fourth regulation. Secondly, it is necessary to enhance and establish ideal norms for regulating asset recovery under Act Number 8 of 2010 concerning the Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering. Particularly, improvements are needed in the civil forfeiture mechanism. First, there is a need to define the specific civil forfeiture mechanisms to be employed in Indonesia. Second, regulations should clarify when criminal forfeiture mechanisms versus civil forfeiture mechanisms are applicable. Third, there should be an expansion of the types of assets that can be subject to seizure through civil forfeiture, as outlined in Article 67 of the Anti-Money Laundering Law. Fourth, the scope of application for civil forfeiture should extend beyond just perpetrators who are subjects of a DPO. Fifth, clear guidelines are needed regarding the timeframe within which asset forfeiture through civil means can be initiated. Sixth, new procedures are required concerning objections to asset forfeiture applications prior to the forfeiture decision. Seventh, norms should be added that outline the stages which the prosecutor's office must follow when filing for asset forfeiture. Eighth, additional norms should address the court's examination process during civil asset forfeiture proceedings. Ninth, it is essential to refine norms that govern the period for which asset forfeiture proceedings may be initiated as a limitation.
FAKULTAS SYARI’AH DAN HUKUM, UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA
PERAMPASAN ASET DALAM RANGKA ASSET RECOVERY ATAS TINDAK PIDANA PENCUCIAN UANG (ANALISIS UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 8 TAHUN 2010 TENTANG PENCEGAHAN DAN PEMBERANTASAN TINDAK PIDANA PENCUCIAN UANG) (Text)
PERAMPASAN ASET DALAM RANGKA ASSET RECOVERY ATAS TINDAK PIDANA PENCUCIAN UANG (ANALISIS UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 8 TAHUN 2010 TENTANG PENCEGAHAN DAN PEMBERANTASAN TINDAK PIDANA PENCUCIAN UANG) (Other)
HTML Summary of #66517 PERAMPASAN ASET DALAM RANGKA ASSET RECOVERY ATAS TINDAK PIDANA PENCUCIAN UANG (ANALISIS UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 8 TAHUN 2010 TENTANG PENCEGAHAN DAN PEMBERANTASAN TINDAK PIDANA PENCUCIAN UANG)