Upaya Pengembalian Kerugian Negara Melalui Kebijakan Pidana Uang Pengganti Tindak Pidana Korupsi

Authors

  • Artha Kariasmarico Universitas Lampung
  • Maroni Maroni Universitas Lampung
  • Emilia Susanti Universitas Lampung

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61132/nakula.v3i6.2326

Keywords:

Policy, Substitute Crimes, State Losses, Criminal Law System, Corruption

Abstract

Criminal money substitution is a very important instrument and has a crucial role in efforts to recover state losses caused by corruption crimes. Through this mechanism, the state seeks to recover losses incurred due to corruption. Although there are provisions that regulate the crime of substitute money, the implementation of the substitute money policy in Indonesia is considered ineffective in restoring state losses due to corruption. The main problem in this study is how the substitute money policy in corruption in Indonesia today and how the construction of the substitute money criminal policy in the perspective of criminal law reform. The methods used in this study are normative juridical and empirical juridical which are research methods that combine normative legal elements with the addition of empirical data. The data sources used in this study are primary data and secondary data. Data was collected through literature studies and field studies. Based on the results of this study, it can be seen that the policy is considered not to clearly explain how the mechanism for recovering state losses through the penalty of substitute money is related. In practice, currently the return of state losses through the imposition of penalty money in lieu has not been effective. This is because there are still many obstacles. Some of the obstacles in the implementation of this substitute money crime are the limitations of law enforcement officials, lack of coordination between institutions, and the inability to trace and confiscate the assets of perpetrators of corruption crimes. In addition, another obstacle faced at the time of execution is the inability of the perpetrator to return state losses caused by corruption crimes. This is what causes the maximum implementation of the substitute money criminal policy. The construction of the substitute money criminal policy in the perspective of criminal law reform, namely the substitute money policy must be able to enforce the law in Total Enforcement or at least in Full Enforcement, namely demanding the return of all state losses caused by corruption crimes as a whole without any legal loopholes that allow convicts to evade.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ade Mahmud. (2017). Dinamika pembayaran uang pengganti dalam tindak pidana korupsi. Jurnal Hukum Mimbar Justicia.

Adenriz, M., Lukitasari, D., & Ismunarno. (2019). Optimalisasi eksekusi pidana uang pengganti melalui pembentukan satuan kerja khusus (studi kasus di Kejaksaan Negeri Surakarta). Jurnal Hukum Pidana Fakultas Hukum UNS.

Arief, B. N. (1998). Beberapa aspek kebijakan penegakan dan pengembangan hukum pidana. Bandung: PT Citra Aditya Bakti.

Arief, B. N. (2007). Masalah penegakan hukum dan kebijakan hukum pidana dalam penanggulangan kejahatan. Jakarta: Kencana Media Group.

Ariman, H. M. R., & Raghin, F. (2016). Hukum pidana. Malang: Setara Press.

Aviva, K. (2023). Rejuvenasi KPK: Urgensi pemberlakuan Rancangan Undang-Undang Perampasan Aset dengan pendekatan in rem dan tinjauan pendekatan serupa pada regulasi unexplained wealth di Australia. https://lk2fhui.law.ui.ac.id/portfolio/rejuvenasi-kpk-urgensi-pemberlakuan-rancangan-undang-undang-perampasan-aset-dengan-pendekatan-in-rem-dan-tinjauan-pendekatan-serupa-pada-regulasi-unexplained-wealth-di-australia

Chazawi, A. (2008). Hukum pembuktian tindak pidana korupsi. Bandung: PT Alumni.

Djaja, E. (2010). Memberantas korupsi bersama Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK). Jakarta: PT Sinar Grafika.

Febriani, S., & Lasmadi, S. (2020). Pengembalian kerugian keuangan negara melalui pembayaran uang pengganti. Pampas Journal of Criminal Law.

https://doi.org/10.22437/pampas.v1i1.8277

https://doi.org/10.35194/jhmj.v3i2.216

Kusumawardani, A. D. (n.d.). Pelaksanaan pembayaran uang pengganti dalam tindak pidana korupsi.

Mahmud, A. (n.d.). Dinamika disparitas pidana uang pengganti dengan pidana subsider dan implikasinya terhadap pengembalian kerugian keuangan negara akibat tindak pidana korupsi. Journal of Law.

Mulyadi, L. (2011). Tindak pidana korupsi di Indonesia: Normatif, teoritis, praktek dan masalahnya. Bandung: PT Alumni.

Munzil, F. (2015). Kesebandingan pidana uang pengganti dan pengganti pidana uang pengganti dalam rangka melindungi hak ekonomi negara dan kepastian hukum. Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum.

Prodjohamidjojo, M. (2001). Penerapan pembuktian terbalik dalam delik korupsi (UU No. 31 Tahun 1999). Bandung: Mandar Maju.

Ramadhana, K., & Anandya, D. (2023). Laporan hasil pemantauan tren vonis tahun 2022. Jakarta: Indonesia Corruption Watch.

Wardanie, I. H., Hiariej, E. O. S., & Supriyadi. (2023). Rekonstruksi hukum pengembalian kerugian keuangan negara dalam tindak pidana korupsi melalui pidana tambahan pembayaran uang pengganti. Yogyakarta: Universitas Gadjah Mada.

Wijayanto, R. Z. (2009). Korupsi mengorupsi Indonesia. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

Downloads

Published

2025-07-31

How to Cite

Artha Kariasmarico, Maroni Maroni, & Emilia Susanti. (2025). Upaya Pengembalian Kerugian Negara Melalui Kebijakan Pidana Uang Pengganti Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Jurnal Nakula : Pusat Ilmu Pendidikan, Bahasa Dan Ilmu Sosial, 3(6), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.61132/nakula.v3i6.2326

Similar Articles

<< < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.