P-ISSN: 2808-5957
E-ISSN: 2808-6724
ijoms.internationaljournallabs.com
1176
PROBLEMS OF THE SETTLEMENT OF STATE LOOTED GOODS IN
THE CRIMINAL ACT OF CORRUPTION AND MONEY LAUNDERING
AT PT ASURANSI JIWASRAYA
Yully Lestari Tasdikin
1
, Slamet Tri Wahyudi
2
Universitas Pembangunan Nasional "Veteran" Jakarta, Indonesia
1, 2
yully_lestari@yahoo.com, slamettriwahyudi@gmail.com
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Date received : 02 Juli 2022
Revision date : 07 Juli 2022
Date received : 13 Juli 2022
The Indonesian criminal law system has not been optimal in
making the recovery of assets resulting from crimes that are
not the target/focus of criminal law material because the
current criminal law related to the recovery of assets resulting
from crimes is only symbolic in its implementation so that the
consequences for the interests of recovering the impact of
crimes are regulated indirectly. and is abstract. The purpose
of this study was to determine, analyze and describe the
application of the authority of the Asset Recovery Center
(PPA) in the settlement of state confiscations in the
corruption and money laundering cases of PT Asuransi
Jiwasraya (Persero). This thesis research is included in the
type of normative juridical research. Normative juridical
research is research in which the law is conceptualized as
what is written in the legislation (law in books) or the law is
conceptualized as a rule or norm which is a benchmark for
human behavior that is considered appropriate. The results of
the Asset Recovery Center can receive and carry out asset
recovery requests from other Ministries/Agencies with the
approval of the Attorney General. Therefore, the Asset
Recovery Center supports the execution of state booty in the
corruption and money laundering cases of PT Asuransi
Jiwasraya (Persero).
Keywords: Legal Certainty,
Zakat, State Administrative
Law.
.
This work is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0
INTRODUCTION
Indonesia is a country that adheres to a state of law (rechtstaat) as a
constitutional mandate in Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution so that law
enforcement adheres to the principles of the rule of law. The principle rule of law
includes the rule of law, equality before the law and the guarantee of human rights by
Problems of The Settlement of State Looted Goods In The Criminal Act of Corruption
And Money Laundering At PT Asuransi Jiwasraya
Indonesian Journal of Multidisciplinary Science, Vol (10), Juli 2022
1177
law and court decisions. In addition, Indonesia also adheres to the concept of awelfare
stateso that the Indonesian government has an obligation to synergize law enforcement
efforts based on the values of justice in order to realize general welfare for the
community which is a national goal. Therefore, the handling of criminal acts with an
economic motive must be carried out using an approach that is fair to the community
through returning the proceeds and instruments of criminal acts to the state for the
benefit of the community (Nasional, 2012).
The Indonesian criminal law system has not been optimal in making the recovery
of assets resulting from crimes that are not the target/focus of criminal law material
because the current criminal law relating to the recovery of assets resulting from crimes
is only symbolic in its implementation so that the consequences for the interests of
recovering the impact of crimes are regulated indirectly and abstractly. Even if there are
legal provisions governing the recovery of the effects of crime, they are only partial and
do not have a theoretical basis and philosophy of criminal law, making it difficult to
enforce criminal law (Jerman, 2017).
The terms assets or items of confiscation and recovery of assets resulting from
crime have different meanings. Objects or assets in a broad sense are objects of value,
or all types of tangible or intangible goods that have economic value. However, almost
all applicable laws and regulations in Indonesia still stipulate that objects or assets that
can be confiscated must first be proven that the assets or objects are related to
violations or crimes. While the concept of asset recovery is more directed to people who
are victims of crime so that they can get back their assets that were lost in a crime, so
they are not harmed (Jerman, 2017).
The return of assets is an effort to bring economic justice, (Syamsudin, 2012)
through the process of the perpetrators of crimes being confiscated, deprived of their
rights from the proceeds of criminal acts emphasized by Matthew H Fleming into three
criteria, namely: (1) the return of assets as a process of revocation, confiscation,
disappearance; (2) what is revoked, confiscated and lost is the proceeds/profits
obtained from certain criminal acts; and (3) one of the purposes of revocation,
confiscation, disappearance is so that the perpetrator of a criminal act cannot use the
proceeds/profits from a criminal act as a tool/means to commit other criminal acts
(Yanuar, 2007).
Asset confiscation as an instrument used in law enforcement is very possible due
to several factors, namely: (1) it is less likely that the perpetrator will think of
committing a crime because it will not be profitable or the profits will be confiscated for
the state; (2) imprisonment will not be able to prevent the commission of a crime
because the perpetrator can still enjoy the results/profits of his crime; (3) confiscation
of assets can increase public support and become an important message that the
Problems of The Settlement of State Looted Goods In The Criminal Act of Corruption
And Money Laundering At PT Asuransi Jiwasraya
Indonesian Journal of Multidisciplinary Science, Vol (10), Juli 2022
1178
government is serious about fighting crime; (4) confiscation of assets is a reflection in
supporting the conduct of war against certain criminal acts; (5) the fines that have been
imposed on the perpetrators are considered insufficient to deter the perpetrators of
criminal acts; and (6) asset confiscation serves to warn those who wish to commit a
crime (Djufri, Kesuma, & Afriani, 2020).
The criminal sanctions regulated in Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning the
Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) are only two criminal sanctions, namely the principal
and additional penalties. In Article 10 letter b number 2 it is stated as "confiscation of
certain goods". Based on the division of the types of criminal sanctions, confiscation
and confiscation of proceeds and instruments of criminal acts are included in the
additional criminal group and not the main crime.
The Law on the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption stipulates that if the
convict does not pay replacement money at the latest within 1 (one) month after the
court's decision which has permanent legal force (inkracht van gewisjde), his property
can be confiscated by the Prosecutor and auctioned off to fulfill the replacement money
as an effort. recovery of state losses (Hakim, 2020).
One of the important elements that must be proven in a criminal act of
corruption is the existence of "elements that can harm state finances or the state
economy". The element of state losses is often a polemic because it has an
understanding that can be seen from several legal perspectives, namely the perspective
of state administrative law, civil law and criminal law. Viewed from the perspective of
state finances from the provisions of Article 1 number 22 concerning the State
Treasury, namely the shortage of money, securities, and goods, which are real and
definite in number as a result of unlawful acts, whether intentionally or negligently. So
that it can be formulated that what is meant by state losses is a shortage of state
assets/wealth due to an act that violates the law, is negligent, or for various reasons
beyond the capabilities of the managers (force majeure).
In the implementation of state financial management, the potential for criminal
acts, especially corruption, is very dominant. Through the Corruption Eradication Act, it
can be identified corruption offenses related to state losses, corruption related to
bribery, corruption related to embezzlement of office, corruption related to extortion,
corruption related to fraudulent acts, corruption related to conflicts of interest in
procurement, and corruption related to gratuities.
Judging from the provisions of Article 74 of Law Number 8 of 2010 concerning
the Prevention and Eradication of the Crime of Money Laundering, it is stated that the
investigation of money laundering crimes is carried out by predicate criminal
investigators, in the explanation of Article 74 what is meant by predicate criminal
investigators authorized to handle investigations of criminal acts of laundering In
Problems of The Settlement of State Looted Goods In The Criminal Act of Corruption
And Money Laundering At PT Asuransi Jiwasraya
Indonesian Journal of Multidisciplinary Science, Vol (10), Juli 2022
1179
addition to the police and prosecutors, they are investigators from the Corruption
Eradication Commission (KPK), the National Narcotics Agency (BNN), and the Director
General of Taxes and the Director General of Customs and Excise at the Ministry of
Finance where investigators of predicate crimes can conduct investigations. Money
Laundering if it finds sufficient initial evidence of the occurrence of a money laundering
crime when conducting an investigation of a predicate crime in accordance with its
authority. However, the Money Laundering Law does not regulate the procedure for
confiscation of money laundering criminal cases. This means that the confiscation is
carried out in accordance with the provisions of the legislation, if there are assets that
have not been confiscated, this Law gives the Judge the authority to order the Public
Prosecutor to confiscate assets.
The construction of the criminal law system in Indonesia does not appear to have
placed the confiscation and recovery of crime victims as part of the instrument of the
criminal system and does not yet have an important meaning as part of efforts to
reduce the level of crime in Indonesia, as can be seen from the definition of
investigation stated in the Criminal Procedure Code that an investigation is a series of
actions. to seek and collect evidence with which evidence makes clear about the crime
that occurred and to find the suspect. From this definition, it shows that the
confiscation and confiscation of proceeds and instruments of criminal acts are not yet
an important part of the investigation of criminal acts in the Criminal Procedure Code.
The Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that the legal action of confiscation
precedes the legal action of confiscation so that confiscation in the Indonesian criminal
law system is a temporary act of the investigator placing objects under his control as
stated in Article 1 number 16 stipulating that confiscation is carried out for the sake of
proof. Then in Article 38 paragraph (1) confiscation can only be carried out by
investigators with a permit from the Head of the local District Court and paragraph (2)
stipulates that if it is not possible to obtain a permit first, investigators can confiscate
only movable objects and immediately report to the chairman. local District Court. Prior
to conducting investigations, prosecutions and examinations of money laundering
criminal cases in court, the provisions of Article 69 of the Money Laundering Law do not
stipulate that investigators of predicate crimes must first prove the predicate crime.
Efforts to recover assets resulting from criminal acts can generally only be carried
out if the perpetrator of the crime is either a suspect or a defendant who has been
legally and convincingly proven guilty of committing a crime. This mechanism is often
difficult to implement, for example, because no perpetrator is found, the perpetrator
dies or there are other obstacles that prevent the perpetrator from undergoing
examination in court or because sufficient evidence is not found to file a lawsuit in
court. Therefore, it is necessary to have a law that allows for the seizure of assets
Problems of The Settlement of State Looted Goods In The Criminal Act of Corruption
And Money Laundering At PT Asuransi Jiwasraya
Indonesian Journal of Multidisciplinary Science, Vol (10), Juli 2022
1180
without punishment or what is known as Non Conviction Based (NSB) Forfeiture
(Sukarno, 2018).
Based on the Attorney General's Regulation Number 1 of 2022 concerning the
Third Amendment to the Attorney General's Regulation Number PER-006/A/JA/2017
concerning the Organization and Work Procedure of the Prosecutor's Office of the
Republic of Indonesia, this is the basis for the establishment of the Asset Recovery
Center (PPA) as a working unit for the Indonesian Attorney General's Office. which has
the task of carrying out Asset Recovery activities under the authority of the Prosecutor's
Office in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations and coordinating with
national and transnational asset recovery cooperation networks.
As is known on March 20, 2020, the BPK released a calculation of state losses
due to the Jiwasraya case. The value reached Rp. 16.81 trillion, this amount was higher
than the AGO's initial estimate of Rp. 13.7 trillion. The Jiwasraya case was also called a
mega scandal because it dragged a number of names and corporations known to be
active in the capital market. On January 14, 2020, the AGO appointed Benny
Tjokrosaputro (Bentjok) who is the Managing Director of Hanson International, Heru
Hidayat (President Commissioner of PT Trada Alam Minera Tbk/TRAM), Hary Prasetyo
(Director of Finance for Jiwasraya period January 2013-2018), Hendrisman Rahim
(President Director Jiwasraya period 2008-2018), and Syahmirwan (former Head of
Investment and Finance Division of Jiwasraya) as suspects. One other individual
suspect, namely the Director of PT Maxima Integra Joko Hartono Tirto, was named a
suspect on February 6, 2020. Asset recovery is one of the options for the Jiwasraya
case settlement scheme. Jiwasraya (Persero), the auctioned assets are worth Rp.520.83
billion. The auction was held by the Attorney General's Office through the Indonesian
Attorney's Asset Recovery Center, this was done to resolve and recover state losses.
Judging from one of the corruption cases of PT Asuransi Jiwasraya (Persero), one
of the convicts was Heru Hidayat who was accused of having harmed the state finances
of up to Rp. 16.8 trillion, and profited from the corruption case of PT Asuransi Jiwasraya
(Persero) up to Rp. 10.7 trillion.
The Public Prosecutor asked Heru Hidayat as a convict in the corruption case of
PT Asuransi Jiwasraya (Persero) to return the profits from the proceeds of the
corruption crime of PT Asuransi Jiwasraya (Persero) to the state through its assets.
Therefore, in February 2021, investigators confiscated the Pinisi Ship owned by Heru
Hidayat as a convict to recover state financial losses in the corruption case of PT
Asuransi Jiwasraya (Persero).
Assets in the form of the Pinisi Ship are auctioned at Bira Harbor, Tanah Beru,
Bulukumba, South Sulawesi. The Pinisi ship is a luxury ship that will be sold at a price of
Rp. 7.456 billion and a security deposit of Rp. 2.5 billion. The auction was carried out
Problems of The Settlement of State Looted Goods In The Criminal Act of Corruption
And Money Laundering At PT Asuransi Jiwasraya
Indonesian Journal of Multidisciplinary Science, Vol (10), Juli 2022
1181
after the convict Heru Hidayat was found guilty in the cassation level trial process and
has permanent legal force. The Pinisi ship is an object of auction based on the Supreme
Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 2931 K/Pid.Sus/2021 which was decided on
August 24, 2021. In the decision of the panel of judges, the Supreme Court stated that
it rejected the appeal from the petitioner for cassation, both the defendant and the
public prosecutor.
METHOD
This thesis research is included in the type of normative juridical research.
Normative juridical research is research in which the law is conceptualized as what is
written in legislation (law in books) or the law is conceptualized as a rule or norm which
is a benchmark for human behavior that is considered appropriate (Amiruddin & Asikin,
2004). Normative juridical research is used based on primary and secondary legal
materials, namely research that refers to the norms contained in statutory regulations
(Soekanto, 2006).
The normative juridical research carried out in this thesis research uses astatue
approach. The approach to the laws and regulations used is related to the authority of
the RI Prosecutor's Asset Recovery Center in the Settlement of State Loot which is
calculated as replacement money as seen from the provisions of the Criminal Procedure
Code, the State Treasury Law, the Corruption Crime Act, the Money Laundering Law. ,
and the Regulation of the Attorney General of the Republic of Indonesia related to the
guidelines for asset recovery and the authority of the RI Attorney General's Asset
Recovery Center
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
The Problem of Settlement of State Loot Against Ships Declared Seized for
the State There is a Civil Lawsuit for Convicts in the Case of Corruption and
Money Laundering PT Asuransi Jiwasraya based on the Supreme Court
Decision Number 2931 K/Pid.Sus/2021
Based on the decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia
Number 2931 K/Pid Sus/2021 dated August 24, 2021 in the case of corruption and
money laundering in the management of finance and investment funds of PT Asuransi
Jiwasraya, the defendant's appeal was declared rejected by the Panel of Judges.
It is known that the defendant, Heru Hidayat as the party that regulates and
controls the management of the investment instruments of shares and mutual funds of
PT. Asuransi Jiwasraya (Persero) hereinafter referred to as PT. Asuransi Jiwasraya, on
days and dates that can no longer be ascertained in 2008 to 2018 at the PT Asuransi
Jiwasraya (Persero) Office on Jalan Ir. H. Juanda Number 34 Central Jakarta City, at the
Problems of The Settlement of State Looted Goods In The Criminal Act of Corruption
And Money Laundering At PT Asuransi Jiwasraya
Indonesian Journal of Multidisciplinary Science, Vol (10), Juli 2022
1182
Indonesia Stock Exchange Office at Jalan Jenderal Sudirman Kav 52 – 53 South Jakarta
City, based on the provisions of Article 35 paragraph (2) of Law Number 46 Year 2009
concerning the Court of Criminal Acts of Corruption, has committed or participated in
committing the acts, together with Hendrisman Rahim, Hary Prasetyo, Syahmirwan,
Benny Tjokrosaputro and Joko Hartono Tirto (each of which was prosecuted in separate
case files), against the law namely:
(1) The defendants Heru Hidayat, Benny Tjokrosaputro and Joko Hartono Tirto
entered into an agreement with Hendrisman Rahim, Hary Prasetyo, and Syahmirwan in
the management of PT Asuransi Jiwasraya's Shares and Mutual Funds investment which
was not transparent and unaccountable.
(2) Hendrisman Rahim, Hary Prasetyo, and Syahmirwan have managed stock
and mutual fund investments, without analysis based on objective data and professional
analysis in the NIKP (Head Office Internal Note), but the analysis is only made as a
formality,
(3) Hendrisman Rahim, Hary Prasetyo, and Syahmirwan have purchased shares
of BJBR, PPRO, and SMBR even though the share ownership has exceeded the
provisions stipulated in the Investment Guidelines, namely a maximum of 2.5% of the
outstanding shares,
(4) Defendants Heru Hidayat and Benny Tjokrosaputro through Joko Hartono
Tirto and affiliated parties have collaborated with Hendrisman Rahim, Hary Prasetyo
and Syahmirwan to conduct transactions to buy and/or sell shares of BJBR, PPRO,
SMBR and SMRU with the aim of intervening in prices which in the end does not provide
investment benefits and cannot meet liquidity needs to support operational activities.
(5) Defendant Heru Hidayat, Benny Tjokrosaputro, Joko Hartono Tirto,
Hendrisman Rahim, Hary Prasetyo, Syahmirwan, manage and control 13 Investment
Managers to form a special Mutual Fund product for PT. Asuransi Jiwasraya, so that the
management of financial instruments that are the
underlying
Mutual Funds of PT
Asuransi Jiwasraya can be controlled by Joko Hartono Tirto;
(6) Hendrisman Rahim, Hary Prasetyo and Syahmirwan, agreed even though
they were aware of the purchase/sale of financial instruments that became the
underlying
in 21 Mutual Fund products managed by 13 Investment Managers controlled
by Joko Hartono Tirto who is an affiliated party with the Defendants Heru Hidayat and
Benny Tjokrosaputro , which in the end does not provide investment returns and cannot
meet liquidity needs to support the company's operational activities;
(7) The defendants Heru Hidayat and Benny Tjokrosaputro through Joko Hartono
Tirto had provided money, shares and other facilities to Hendrisman Rahim, Hary
Prasetyo and Syahmirwan related to the cooperation in managing the investment in
shares and Mutual Funds of PT. Jiwasraya Insurance 2008 to 2018;
Problems of The Settlement of State Looted Goods In The Criminal Act of Corruption
And Money Laundering At PT Asuransi Jiwasraya
Indonesian Journal of Multidisciplinary Science, Vol (10), Juli 2022
1183
These actions violate the provisions of:
a) Article 11 paragraph (2) of Law Number 2 of 1992 concerning Insurance Business;
b) Article 11 paragraph (1) of Law Number 40 of 2014 concerning Insurance; -
Article 8 paragraph (1) letters b and c, Article 11, Article 13 paragraph (1), Article
14 paragraph (1) Article 15 paragraph (1) and Article 20 paragraph (1)
Government Regulation Number 73 of 1992 concerning Business Operations
Insurance;
c) Article 6 paragraph (3) of the Regulation of the Minister of Finance (PMK) Number
53/PMK.010/2012 dated April 3, 2012 concerning the Financial Health of
Insurance Companies and Reinsurance Companies;
d) Article 11 Decree of the Minister of Finance (KMK) Number 424/KMK.06/2003
concerning Financial Health of Insurance Companies and Reinsurance Companies;
e) Article 3 point 4, and Article 23 Regulation of the Minister of State for State-
Owned Enterprises (Permen BUMN) Number PER-01/MBU/2011 concerning the
Implementation of Good Corporate Governance in State-Owned Enterprises;
f) Article 59 and Article 60 of the Financial Services Authority (OJK) Regulation
Number 2/POJK.05/2014 dated 28 March 2014 concerning Good Corporate
Governance for Insurance Companies;
g) Article 18, Article 19 letters a and b, Article 20 letters b and c number 1 and
number 2 of OJK Regulation Number 43/POJK.04/2015 dated December 23, 2015
concerning Guidelines for Conduct of Investment Managers;
h) Article 58 of OJK Regulation Number 73/POJK.05/2016 dated 23 December 2016
concerning Good Corporate Governance for Insurance Companies;
(i) Article 6 paragraph (4) of POJK Number 71/POJK.05/2016 dated 28 December
2016 concerning Health of Insurance Companies and Reinsurance Companies;
j) Article 1 point 2 and Article 4 Decree of the Board of Directors of PT Asuransi
Jiwasraya (Persero) Number 004A.SK.U.012004 Dated January 9, 2004 concerning
Investment Guidelines for PT Asuransi Jiwasraya (Persero);
c) Article 1 Number 4 and Article 4 Decree of the Board of Directors of PT Asuransi
Jiwasraya (Persero) Number 280.a.SK.U.1212 dated December 28, 2012
concerning Investment Guidelines for PT Asuransi Jiwasraya (Persero);
l) Decision of the Board of Directors of PT Asuransi Jiwasraya Number
186.SK.U.0713 dated July 15, 2013 concerning General Guidelines for Good
Corporate Governance of PT Asuransi Jiwasraya, namely the Code of Conduct for
the Implementation of PT Asuransi Jiwasraya's GCG Part B. III concerning Anti-
Corruption and Donation Business Ethics;
Problems of The Settlement of State Looted Goods In The Criminal Act of Corruption
And Money Laundering At PT Asuransi Jiwasraya
Indonesian Journal of Multidisciplinary Science, Vol (10), Juli 2022
1184
m) Article 7 paragraph (2) Decree of the Board of Directors of PT Asuransi Jiwasraya
(Persero) Number 217.SK.U.0716 dated July 20, 2016 concerning Investment
Guidelines;
Enriching oneself, namely the Defendant Heru Hidayat and other people,
namely Benny Tjokrosaputro, Joko Hartono Tirto, Hendrisman Rahim, Hary Prasetyo
and Syahmirwan or a corporation, which can harm the State Finances in the
amount of Rp. 16,807,283,375,000.00 (sixteen trillion eight hundred seven billion
two hundred and eighty three million three hundred and seventy five thousand
rupiahs), or at least around that amount as stated in the Report on the Results of
Investigative Examinations in the Context of Calculation of State Losses on Financial
Management and Investment Funds at PT. Asuransi Jiwasraya (Persero) Period
2008 to 2018 Number 06/LHP/XXI/03/2020 March 9, 2020 from the Supreme Audit
Agency of the Republic of Indonesia (BPK RI), or the State economy.
The actions of the Defendant Heru Hidayat together with Benny
Tjokrosaputro, Joko Hartono Tirto, Hendrisman Rahim, Hary Prasetyo and
Syahmirwan as described above are contrary to:
1) Law Number 2 of 1992 concerning Insurance Business, Article 11
paragraph (2) which states that every insurance company must
maintain health in accordance with the provisions referred to in
paragraph (1) and must conduct business in accordance with sound
insurance principles.
2) Law Number 40 of 2014 concerning Insurance, Article 11 paragraph (1)
which states that insurance companies must implement good corporate
governance.
3) Government Regulation Number 73 of 1992 concerning the
Implementation of Insurance Business in article 8 paragraph (1), article
13 paragraph (1), article 15 paragraph (1) and article 20 paragraph (1).
4) Minister of Finance Regulation (PMK) Number 53/PMK.010/2012 dated
April 3, 2012 concerning Financial Health of Insurance Companies and
Reinsurance Companies.
5) Decree of the Minister of Finance (KMK) Number 424/KMK.06/2003
concerning Financial Health of Insurance and Reinsurance Companies.
6) Regulation of the Minister of State for State-Owned Enterprises (Permen
BUMN) Number PER-01/MBU/2011 concerning the Implementation
of
Good Corporate Governance
in State-Owned Enterprises.
Problems of The Settlement of State Looted Goods In The Criminal Act of Corruption
And Money Laundering At PT Asuransi Jiwasraya
Indonesian Journal of Multidisciplinary Science, Vol (10), Juli 2022
1185
7) Financial Services Authority (OJK) Regulation Number 2/POJK.05/2014
dated 28 March 2014 concerning Good Corporate Governance for
Insurance Companies.
8) Article 18, Article 19 letters a and b, Article 20 letters b and c number 1
and number 2 of OJK Regulation Number 43/POJK.04/2015 dated
December 23, 2015 regarding the Code of Conduct for Investment
Managers.
One of the elements in proving the existence of a criminal act of corruption
is the element of state loss. In the Jiwasraya case, the AGO investigators assessed
that the failure to pay PT. AJS as audited by the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) is Rp.
16.8 trillion is a state loss. The loss came from the direct purchase
of
4 (four) shares
by PT. AJS12, and share purchase transactions (
indirect
) through 21 (twenty one)
Mutual Funds (thirteen) Investment Managers which are claimed to have been
controlled by Heru Hidayat and Benny Tjokrosaputro.
Determining the value of the loss can be problematic because de facto the
shares are still owned by PT. AJS however experienced a decline in share value
(
impairment
). In addition, it is known that at the time of the purchase, the shares
purchased by PT. AJS is included in the LQ45 category which is technically
liquid
and has a small risk of
impairment
. Referring to Karen Agustiawan's cassation
decision, the Supreme Court stated that the loss due to the impairment of
shares
was
not a real loss. The Supreme Court views that the nature of this loss is
temporary, which is influenced by the fluctuating stock value. Therefore, this loss is
considered a loss that is not real or (
unrealized loss
).
The Attorney General's Office stated that the perpetrators had deliberately
violated a number of regulations. The establishment of a special mutual fund
controlled by one of the suspects in this case is considered contrary to Article 6
paragraph (3) of the Regulation of the Minister of Finance (PMK) Number
53/PMK.010/2012 dated April 3, 2012 concerning Financial Health of Insurance
Companies and Reinsurance Companies, and Article 4 Decision of the Board of
Directors of PT Asuransi Jiwasraya (Persero) Number 280.a.SK.U.1212 concerning
Investment Guidelines for PT Asuransi Jiwasraya (Persero).
In addition, the purchase of shares that had previously been manipulated in
price by means of “
pump and dump
” or known as 'fried' stocks that were risky or
illiquid in the end did not provide investment returns and could not meet the
liquidity needs to support the operational activities of PT. AJS, which is contrary to
Article 4 of the Decree of the Board of Directors of PT Asuransi Jiwasraya (Persero)
Number 280.a.SK.U.1212 concerning Investment Guidelines of PT Asuransi
Jiwasraya (Persero). Furthermore, the AGO also considered that the approval of the
Problems of The Settlement of State Looted Goods In The Criminal Act of Corruption
And Money Laundering At PT Asuransi Jiwasraya
Indonesian Journal of Multidisciplinary Science, Vol (10), Juli 2022
1186
board of directors in the Head Office Internal Memorandum (NIKP) by the Board of
Directors of PT. AJS is done unprofessionally.
Of course, the proof of this depends on the existing legal facts. The legal
facts in question include the extent to which the Attorney General's claim is true
which states that the investment managers who purchase mutual fund shares are
nominees
controlled by Heru Hidayat and Benny Tjokrosaputro. This claim was
denied by the suspects. Evidence of this fact determines whether there is
fraud
or
conflict
of interest
in managing and placing investment funds. In addition,
normatively, the main thing in determining that errors and errors in investment
management can be included in the category of criminal acts is determined by the
presence of elements of
mens rea
or malicious intent.
Regarding the coercion in the Jiwasraya case, the Attorney General's Office
has carried out confiscations, blocking, confiscation of assets and other coercive
measures. So far, many objections have been submitted to the Corruption Court
against the coercive measures which are generally based on the investigator's
carelessness in separating any assets that are related or not related to the case
being investigated. The objections did not only come from the suspects, but also
other third parties (in good faith) who were affected by the confiscation, such as
those experienced by securities account holders and thousands of customers and
insurance policy holders of PT Asuransi Jiwa Wanaartha.
On the other hand, the practice of confiscation and confiscation of assets in
the Jiwasraya case which was met by lawsuits from third parties has also exposed
the fact that there are legal loopholes related to the impact and consistency of
decisions, as well as procedural law, all of which give way to the increasingly
important settlement of the Asset Confiscation Bill.
The Attorney General's Office through the Asset Recovery Center (PPA) will
auction off state confiscations originating from corruption cases (Tipikor) and
money laundering crimes (TPPU) in the PT Asuransi Jiwasraya case. The items that
will be auctioned for the first time are the loot from the convicts Heru Hidayat and
Benny Tjokrosaputro each of four four-wheeled vehicles. All looted goods, not only
in the city of Jakarta, but also in several areas, have been assessed in the context
of an auction. The looted goods were, among others, in South Sulawesi, DKI
Jakarta and West Java, namely in Bogor, Kuningan, and Bekasi Regency. Then in
South Kalimantan, namely Banjarasih, East Kalimantan in the cities of Balikpapan
and Samarinda, and Kutai Regency. In addition, there are in Banten, namely in
Lebak Regency, Tangerang Regency, and South Tangerang City.
Problems of The Settlement of State Looted Goods In The Criminal Act of Corruption
And Money Laundering At PT Asuransi Jiwasraya
Indonesian Journal of Multidisciplinary Science, Vol (10), Juli 2022
1187
For auction activities, the Attorney General's Office cooperates with the
Directorate of Auctions at the Directorate General of State Assets (DJKN) of the
Ministry of Finance. The auction was carried out by the KPKNL.
The phinisi ship which was seized from the President Commissioner of PT
Trada Alam Minera Heru Hidayat will be auctioned. The auction is based on the
Supreme Court's cassation decision in the corruption and money laundering cases of
PT Asuransi Jiwasraya (Persero) which has permanent legal force. In this case, the
RI Prosecutor's Asset Recovery Center will hold an auction of state looted goods
through the Makassar State Property and Auction Service Office (KPKNL). Ship with
code KLM Zaneta 231 GT 1005/LL9 No. The 472/L year of manufacture in 2019 will
be auctioned at a price of IDR 7.456 billion. The security deposit that must be paid
to participate in the auction is IDR 2.5 billion. The ship is in Bira Harbor, Tanah
Beru, Bulukumba, South Sulawesi.
The defendant Heru Hidayat has been legally and convincingly proven guilty
according to the law of “committing a criminal act of corruption together and
money laundering” as stated in the First Primary indictment Article 2 paragraph (1)
Jo. Article 18 of Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Corruption
Crimes as amended by Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning Amendments to Law
Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Corruption Crimes jo. Article 55
paragraph (1) 1st of the Criminal Code and Second Article 3 paragraph (1) letter c
of Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 15 of 2002 concerning the Crime of
Money Laundering as amended by Law Number 25 of 2003 concerning
Amendments to Laws Number 15 of 2002 concerning the Crime of Money
Laundering and the Three Primary Acts of the Defendant as regulated and subject
to criminal penalties in Article 3 of Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 8 of
2010 concerning the Prevention and Eradication of the Crime of Money Laundering.
Efforts to hide or disguise the origin of these assets have been seen from
the legal facts that the Defendant Heru Hidayat as the President Director of PT.
Maxima Integra and as the owner of the companies that are included in the Maxima
Group during the period from 2010 to 2018, the amount of money received by the
Defendant Heru Hidyat as a result of a criminal act of corruption to regulate and
control the instruments for managing investments in shares and Mutual Funds of
PT. Asuransi Jiwasraya, the Defendant Heru Hidayat with the aim of hiding or
disguising the origin of the Assets using the proceeds of the crime by placing it in a
bank account either in the name of the Defendant Heru Hidayat himself or on the
account of another party with the aim of disguising the origin of the assets through
the
nomineeThe nominees are
through the accounts of Joko Hartono Tirto, Piter
Rasiman, Tommy Iskandar Widjaja, Utomo Pusposuharto, Suprihatin Njoman,
Problems of The Settlement of State Looted Goods In The Criminal Act of Corruption
And Money Laundering At PT Asuransi Jiwasraya
Indonesian Journal of Multidisciplinary Science, Vol (10), Juli 2022
1188
Freddy Budiman, Ratnawati Wihardjo, Joanne Christy Hidayat, Alfian Pramana,
Michael Danujaya, Nie Swe Hoa, Denny Suriadinata and using several top bank
accounts company names include: PT. Permai Alam Sentosa, PT Maxima Integra
Investama, PT Maxima Agro Industri, PT Dexa Indo Pratama, PT Dexindo Jasa Multi
Artha, PT Dexindo Multiartha Mulia, PT Tarbatin Makmur Utama, PT Dexa Anugrah
Investama, PT Bumi Harapan Lestari, PT Baramega Persada Investama, PT. Topaz
Investment, PT. Topas International, PT Tandikek Asri Lestari, PT Trisurya Lintas
Investama, PT Sriwijaya Abadi Sentosa, PT Sriwijaya Megah Makmur, PT. Anugrah
Semesta Investama, PT Dexa Medica, PT Millennium Capital Management, PT
Kariangau Industri Sejahtera.
The defendant Heru Hidayat hid or disguised the origin of wealth by
spending money from the proceeds of corruption by buying land and buildings, then
the Defendant Heru Hidayat with the intent and purpose of hiding or disguising the
origin of wealth. the origin of the assets through Joko Hartono Tirto by purchasing
land and buildings which are then in the deed of sale in the name of Utomo Puspo
Suharto.
Defendant Heru Hidayat hid or disguised the origin of wealth by spending
money from the crime of corruption by spending a motor vehicle on behalf of
Defendant Heru Hidayat then with the aim of disguising the origin of wealth using
the name of another party, namely on behalf of Ratnawati Wihardjo.
The defendant Heru Hidayat from 2011 to 2018 with the aim of hiding or
disguising the origin of assets using proceeds of crime originating from the
management of investment shares and Mutual Funds of PT. Jiwasaraya Insurance,
the Defendant Heru Hidayat spent the apartment and car domestically through
other parties, namely:
1) 2 (two) units of Senopati Suite Apartment, Lt. 6 Bedroom Types
belonging to the Defendant Heru Hidayat on behalf of Joanne Hidayat
(Son of the Defendant Heru Hidayat) whose address is at Jln. Senopati
Number. 41 RT 8/RW 2 Senayan, Kebayoran Baru District, South Jakarta
12190;
2) 1 (one) unit of white Alphard car with plate B 58 HIE in the name of
Joanne Hidayat;
3) 1 (one) unit Silver Ferrari car under the name of Joanne Hidayat in 2012.
4) 1 (one) unit of white Hiace Car under the name of Joanne Hidayat in
2017;
5) 1 (one) unit Porsche Cayenne 3.6 A/T Year 2012 Police Number B 9 RTM
in the name of Ratnwati Wihardjo;
Problems of The Settlement of State Looted Goods In The Criminal Act of Corruption
And Money Laundering At PT Asuransi Jiwasraya
Indonesian Journal of Multidisciplinary Science, Vol (10), Juli 2022
1189
6) 1 (one) Phinisi Ship belonging to the Defendant Heru Hidayat through
Freddy Gunawan located at Bira Harbor, Tanah Beru, Bulukumba
Regency, South Sulawesi Province;
7) 1 (one) unit of Pakubuwono apartment belonging to the Defendant Heru
Hidayat on behalf of Ratnawati Wihardjo with installment payments by
the Defendant Heru Hidayat having his address at Jalan Pakubuwono VI
/ Jalan Ophir RT 005 RW 01 9th Floor Number B 09 E Tower Baswood;
8) 1 (one) apartment unit Pakubuwono Signature Unit Satinwood Number
51 D, having its address at Jalan Pakubuwono VI / Jalan Ophir RT 005
RW 01 Floor 51 Number 51 D Tower Satinwood. The year 2011 was
obtained, the settlement of 2014 belonged to the Defendant Heru
Hidayat on behalf of Ratnawati Wihardjo with the payment of
installments by the Defendant Heru Hidayat;
9) 1 (one) apartment unit Pakubuwono Signature Unit Satinwood Number
51 D, having its address at Jalan Pakubuwono VI / Jalan Ophir RT 005
RW 01 Floor 51 Number 51 H Tower Satinwood. The year 2011 was
obtained, the settlement of 2014 belonged to the Defendant Heru
Hidayat on behalf of Ratnawati Wihardjo with the payment of
installments by the Defendant Heru Hidayat;
10) 1 (one) unit of Setiabudi Skygarden Apartment in the name of Ratna
Widuri Ong (Wife of the Defendant Heru Hidayat) Tower Sky Type 2 Unit
3809 Year 2015 acquisition;
11) Thai Village Restaurant changed its name to Shuguo Yin Xiang which is
located at Senayan City Mall Lt. 5 Belongs to the Defendant Heru Hidayat
through Joanne Hidayat in 2018;
The defendant Heru Hidayat was proven legally and convincingly guilty of
committing a criminal act of corruption together and committing the crime of
money laundering as stated in the First Primary and the Second and Third Primary
indictments. The Panel of Judges sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment and
an additional sentence for the defendant to pay compensation to the State in the
amount of Rp. 10,728,783,375,000.00 (ten trillion seven hundred twenty eight
billion seven hundred eighty three million three hundred and seventy five thousand
rupiahs), if the convict does not pay the replacement money at the latest within 1
(one) month after the Court's decision has permanent legal force, then his property
is confiscated by the Prosecutor and auctioned off to cover the replacement money.
The verdict of the inkrah convict Heru was registered with Number 2931
K/Pid.Sus/2021 dated August 24, 2021. In the Jiwasraya mega-corruption case that
Problems of The Settlement of State Looted Goods In The Criminal Act of Corruption
And Money Laundering At PT Asuransi Jiwasraya
Indonesian Journal of Multidisciplinary Science, Vol (10), Juli 2022
1190
cost the state finances Rp. 16,807 trillion, the panel of judges sentenced Heru to
life imprisonment. In addition, he also had to pay a fine of Rp. 10,728 trillion.
The Attorney General's Office (AGO) has again auctioned a number of
confiscated goods related to the Jiwasraya corruption case that have not been sold.
Among the confiscated items that will be re-auctioned are phinisi boats, land, and
cars with a total limit value of Rp 520.8 billion. Asset Recovery of the Attorney
General's Office in an effort to settle and recover state losses, has carried out and
will carry out the auction of looted goods in cases of corruption and money
laundering at PT Asuransi Jiwasraya (Persero) through the Office of the State
Assets and Auction Service (KPKNL).
The Attorney General's Office (AGO) is auctioning another luxury ship Pinisi
KLM Zaneta 231 belonging to the convict Heru Hidayat in order to restore state
losses in the alleged corruption case of PT Jiwasraya (Persero). The auction will
begin on November 26, 2021. Previously, 17 ships belonging to the convict Heru
Hidayat had also been auctioned off. However, only five were sold, namely:
1. The Barge ARK 02 ship is located on the banks of the Mahakam River,
Kel. Bakuan, District. Palaran, Samarinda City, East Kalimantan, was
offered with a limit price of IDR 8,090,000,000 and sold at a price of IDR
8,190,000,000.
2. Barge ship ARK 06 is located on the banks of the Mahakam River, Kel.
Bakuan, District. Palaran, Samarinda City, East Kalimantan, was offered
with a limit price of Rp. 8,300,000,000, and sold for Rp. 11,500,000,000.
3. The TAURIANS TWO tugboat is located at the Class II Port of Sendawar,
Kampung Bunyut Village, Kec. Melaka, Kab. West Kutai, East Kalimantan,
was offered with a limit price of IDR 1,810,000,000 and sold for IDR
2,250,000,000.
4. The Tugboat TAURIANS THREE is located at the Class II Port of
Sendawar, Kampung Bunyut Village, Kec. Melaka, Kab. West Kutai, East
Kalimantan, was offered with a limit price of IDR 1,810,000,000, and sold
for IDR 2,754,000,000.
5. The TAURIANS ONE tugboat is located at the Class II Port of Sendawar,
Kampung Bunyut Village, Kec. Melaka, Kab. West Kutai, East Kalimantan,
was offered with a limit price of Rp. 1,780,000,000 and sold at a price of
Rp. 2,492,000,000.
The AGO's Asset Recovery Center has auctioned a unit of the Pinisi KLM
Zaneta 231 GT 1005/LL9 No 472/L. The year of manufacture in 2019 was at the
end of November 2021. Procedurally, the vessel will continue to be auctioned. The
auction will be repeated several times according to the consideration of the
Problems of The Settlement of State Looted Goods In The Criminal Act of Corruption
And Money Laundering At PT Asuransi Jiwasraya
Indonesian Journal of Multidisciplinary Science, Vol (10), Juli 2022
1191
Attorney General's Office. However, if later it does not sell well, then there are still
other options to take advantage of the stolen goods, such as grants to local
governments. Apart from donating the ship, it can also be given to the
Ministry/Agency in need. For example, to be used by the Ministry of Maritime Affairs
and Fisheries (KKP).
To be able to get use of this ship, the Ministry/Agency needs to submit a
letter of application to the Attorney General's Office. Once approved, the Ministry of
Finance will immediately transfer the usage rights. The method is to send an
application to the Prosecutor's Office and the Prosecutor's Office will give approval
to the user of the goods in the case of the applicant through the ministry of finance.
Whereas the problem that occurred in the settlement of the State Loot
against the Phinisi ship which was declared confiscated for the State was the
existence of another party who claimed to be the owner of the Phinisi ship, PT
Maxima Lautan Nusantara, sued the Attorney General's Office, KPKNL Makassar,
and Heru Hidayat to the Central Jakarta District Court. In his petition, Maxima asked
the panel of judges to say that the AGO and the AGO's Asset Recovery Center had
committed an unlawful act. The judge was asked to declare by law the Cruise Ship
Zaneta GT 231 No. 1005/LLq is the property of the plaintiff. Furthermore, stated
that the Organization and Implementation of the Auction of State Loot for the
Cruise Ship Zaneta GT 231 No. 1005/LLq which was held on Thursday, February 24,
2022, is null and void. While the last petition, the plaintiffs asked the defendants,
namely KPKNL Makassar, Heru Hidayat, Freddy Budiman and the Provincial
Government of South Sulawesi to return the money amounting to Rp4 billion and
the defendant (South Sulawesi Provincial Government) returned the Cruise Ship
Zaneta GT 231 No. 1005/LLq to its original state to the plaintiff.
That the corruption and money laundering case on behalf of the convict
Heru Hidayat has permanent legal force based on the Decision of the Supreme
Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 2931 K/Pid.Sus/2021 dated 24 August
2021 in conjunction with the Decision of the Corruption Court at the DKI Jakarta
High Court Number 4/Pid .Sus-TPK/2021/PT.DKI dated February 24, 2021 in
conjunction with the Corruption Court Decision at the Central Jakarta District Court
Number 30/Pid.Sus.TPK/2020/PN.Jkt.Pst dated October 26, 2020, with the verdict
between another stipulates that the evidence is confiscated for the state, including
1 (one) unit of the Pinisi KLM Zaneta 231 GT 1005/LL9 ship No. 472/L year of
manufacture 2019 belonging to the Defendant Heru Hidayat through Freddy
Gunawan who was at Bira Harbor, Tanah Beru, Bulukumba Regency, Sulawesi
Province. The DKI Jakarta High Prosecutor's Office submitted a request for
assistance to the Asset Recovery Center based on the letter from the Head of the
Problems of The Settlement of State Looted Goods In The Criminal Act of Corruption
And Money Laundering At PT Asuransi Jiwasraya
Indonesian Journal of Multidisciplinary Science, Vol (10), Juli 2022
1192
DKI Jakarta High Prosecutor's Office Number B-6302/MI/CPL.3/09/2021 dated
September 1, 2021 regarding the Request for Settlement of State confiscation of
the Corruption Crime Case of PT Asuransi Jiwasraya ( Persero). As a series of
mentoring activities, specifically for the phinisi ship, the Asset Recovery Center has
carried out maintenance and security as well as an assessment through the
Makassar State Property and Auction Service Office (KPKNL), with the result that a
fair value of Rp. 7,456,069,000,- (seven billion four hundred fifty-six million and
sixty-nine thousand rupiah) based on the appraisal report dated September 30,
2021.
In order to support the execution of the state's looted goods, the Head of
the Asset Recovery Center has issued a Decree on the Establishment of the Auction
Committee as Corruption and Money Laundering Crime Auction Selling Officer in the
name of the Convict Heru Hidayat with letter Number KEP-034/K.4/Kpa.5/10/2021
dated 04 October 2021 and based on the Decree of the Attorney General of the
Republic of Indonesia dated 08 October 2021 concerning Granting of State Loot
Auction Permit in a Case on behalf of the Convict Haru Hidayat in the form of 1
(one) unit of the Pinisi KLM Zaneta 231 GT 1005/LL9 ship No. 472/L year of
manufacture 2019 which is located at Bira Port, Tanah Beru, Bulukumba Regency,
Sulawesi Province then the RI Prosecutor's Asset Recovery Center submitted an
auction request to the Makassar KPKNL.
At the request of the Center for Asset Recovery, the Makassar State Property and
Auction Service Office (KPKNL) with letter Number S-3036/WKN.15/KNL.02/2021 dated
21 October 2021 has determined that the auction of confiscated assets is carried out in
the name of the convict Heru Hidayat. held on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the
auction is No Bidding (TAP). Furthermore, on February 24, 2022, the auction of 1 (one)
unit Phinisi KLM Zaneta 231 GT 1005/LL9 No.472/L year of manufacture 2019 took
place at the Makassar KPKNL office, in the auction activity there was 1 (one) person
who deposit the auction guarantee in the amount of Rp.2,500,000,000.00 (two billion
five hundred million rupiah), but during the auction the person concerned does not
make a bid, so that the auction activity is determined to be No Bidding (TAP)
CONCLUSION
The Asset Recovery Center can receive and carry out asset recovery requests
from other Ministries/Agencies with the approval of the Attorney General. Therefore,
the Asset Recovery Center supports the execution of state booty in the corruption and
money laundering cases of PT Asuransi Jiwasraya (Persero).
The problem found in the settlement of the State Loot for the Phinisi ship which
was declared confiscated for the State is the existence of another party who claims to
Problems of The Settlement of State Looted Goods In The Criminal Act of Corruption
And Money Laundering At PT Asuransi Jiwasraya
Indonesian Journal of Multidisciplinary Science, Vol (10), Juli 2022
1193
be the owner of 1 (one) unit of the Phinisi KLM Zaneta 231 GT 1005/LL9 No.472/L year
of manufacture 2019, PT Maxima Lautan Nusantara, sued the Attorney General's Office,
Makassar KPKNL, and Heru Hidayat to the Central Jakarta District Court. In her petition,
Maxima asked the panel of judges to declare that the Attorney General's Office and the
AGO's Asset Recovery Center had committed an unlawful act. That the corruption and
money laundering case on behalf of the convict Heru Hidayat has permanent legal force
based on the Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 2931
K/Pid.Sus/2021 dated 24 August 2021 in conjunction with the Decision of the
Corruption Court at the DKI Jakarta High Court Number 4/Pid Sus-TPK/2021/PT.DKI
dated February 24, 2021 in conjunction with the Corruption Court Decision at the
Central Jakarta District Court Number 30/Pid.Sus.TPK/2020/PN.Jkt.Pst dated October
26, 2020, with the verdict between another stipulates that evidence in the form of 1
(one) unit of the Phinisi KLM Zaneta 231 GT 1005/LL9 No.472/L year of manufacture
2019 was confiscated for the state. Later, the role of the prosecutor in civil cases will
not be as a public prosecutor or executor but in lawsuits as a State Attorney based on
Article 30 Paragraph (2) of Law Number 16 of 2004 concerning the Prosecutor's Office
of the Republic of Indonesia.
REFERENCE
Amiruddin & Asikin, Z. (2004). Pengantar metode penelitian hukum.
Jakarta: Raja
Grafindo Persada
.
Djufri, Darmadi, Kesuma, Derry Angling, & Afriani, Kinaria. (2020). Model Pengembalian
Aset (Asset Recovery) Sebagai Alternatif Memulihkan Kerugian Negara Dalam
Perkara Tindak Pidana Korupsi.
Disiplin: Majalah Civitas Akademika Sekolah Tinggi
Ilmu Hukum Sumpah Pemuda
, 120–132.
Hakim, Abdul. (2020). Alternatif Metode Ganti Kerugian terhadap Korban Tindak Pidana
sebagai Wujud Restorative Justice dalam Perspektif RKUHAP.
Jurnal Peradilan
Indonesia Teropong
,
8
(7), 16–17.
Jerman, Heri. (2017). Pemulihan Aset Hasil Kejahatan Sebagai Bentuk Perlindungan
Hukum Terhadap Korban Kejahatan.
Jurnal DiH Jurnal Ilmu Hukum
,
13
(25), 150.
Nasional, Pusat Perencanaan Pembangunan Hukum. (2012).
Laporan Akhir Naskah
Akademik Rancangan Undang-Undang Tentang Perampasan Aset Pidana
. Jakarta:
Badan Pembinaan Hukum Nasional (BPHN), Kementerian Hukum dan HAM RI.
Problems of The Settlement of State Looted Goods In The Criminal Act of Corruption
And Money Laundering At PT Asuransi Jiwasraya
Indonesian Journal of Multidisciplinary Science, Vol (10), Juli 2022
1194
Soekanto, Soerjono. (2006).
Pengantar penelitian hukum
. Penerbit Universitas
Indonesia (UI-Press).
Sukarno. (2018). Penerapan Perampasan Aset di Indonesia sebagai Upaya Pemulihan
Kerugian Negara dalam Perspektif Keuangan Negara.
Indonesian Treasury Review
,
3
(4), 297.
Syamsudin, M. (2012). Keadilan Substantif yang terabaikan dalam Sengketa Sita
Jaminan.
Jurnal Yudisial
,
5
(1), 36–50.
Yanuar, Purwaning M. (2007).
Pengembalian aset hasil korupsi: berdasarkan Konvensi
PBB Anti Korupsi, 2003 dalam sistem hukum Indonesia
. Alumni.
