TINJAUAN YURIDIS TERHADAP PERAMPASAN ASET HASIL KEJAHATAN DARI TERPIDANA KORUPSI DI KOTA KENDARI

Abstract

This study aims to determine the legal basis for the implementation of the confiscation of assets resulting from corruption crimes and the role of prosecutors in court decisions that have permanent legal force in the form of confiscation of assets resulting from corruption crimes. The study was conducted in Kendari City, precisely at the Kendari District Attorney's Office and the Southeast Sulawesi Regional Police. This study uses descriptive research because the data obtained in the field is presented descriptively using the empirical normative approach method. Based on the analysis of the data and facts that the author has obtained, the author concludes, among others: a) The legal basis for the implementation of the confiscation of assets resulting from corruption crimes, namely Asset Confiscation has the same meaning as the term "objects" used in the Criminal Procedure Code. The Criminal Procedure Code emphasizes more on objects related to criminal acts, including objects resulting from criminal acts, while "assets" in the Draft Bill are more directed at objects (movable/immovable, tangible/ intangible) objects used to commit criminal acts, objects that will be used to commit criminal acts, and other objects that have a direct or indirect relationship with the criminal acts committed.; b) The role of the prosecutor in a court decision that has permanent legal force in the form of confiscation of assets resulting from corruption crimes, namely the prosecutor has not optimally exercised his authority in returning state financial losses, because the prosecutor's office should have made other efforts that have been regulated by law, namely the prosecutor's office as the state attorney also carries out civil law instruments.