Henry Indraguna, Faisal Santiago
Asset confiscation is an important part in the prevention and eradication of criminal acts. However, in reality, very few court decisions made on financial crimes are associated with the Criminal Act of Money Laundering (Indonesian, UUTPPU), despite the high number of related crimes reaching the court (the number is much higher for cases that are still at the stage of investigation), such as corruption and others. The implementation of UUTPPU as a criminal law approach alone is not really effective in the confiscation of proceeds of crime. This lack of effectiveness is caused by the fact that when judges of fraud cases decide to confiscate the asset of the offender, the confiscated asset will be handed over to the state instead of the victims. In addition, finding material truth as proof in a criminal case is relatively difficult. The hindering factors faced by law enforcers in asset confiscation include the inappropriate existing laws and regulations and the lack of efforts by law enforcers to identify and map the assets or property of suspects and other parties suspected of being connected to the suspect in the suspected corruption case. The process of identifying and mapping assets is followed by a series of preliminary and full investigations to recover state financial losses incurred as a result of the alleged corruption against the suspect.