Asset Recovery as a Fundamental Principal in Law Enforcement of Corruption by Corporations
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Corruption is one of the most widespread and chronic crimes in Indonesia. Therefore, handling corruption is a very important priority for law enforcement. Perpetrators of corruption are not only individuals but also corporations. The crime is done for the benefit of the corporation itself. Today corruption committed by corporations have started to be a concern of law enforcement officials even though the implementation is not yet optimal. This paper discusses the assets recovery as a fundamental principal in criminal punishment against a corrupt corporation. This research is using a dogmatic legal method by analyzing legal materials. From the research conducted it can be concluded that law enforcement of criminal acts of corruption carried out by corporations should be prioritized in the asset recovery principal and not only aiming to punish criminal offenders. So it is recommended to law enforcement officials to use asset recovery approach in handling corruption cases committed by corporations, including in pairing the indictment with money laundering regime.
Downloads
Metrics
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
Anti-corruption Initiative for Asia Pacific. (2020). Retrieved August 3, 2022, from oecd.org website: https://www.oecd.org/corruption/anti-corruption-initiative-for-asia-pacific.htm
Anti-Corruption Instruments and the Oecd Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. (2003). Paris.
Aritonang, R., Anindito, L., Fatoni, M. I., Wachjoe, S., Novariza, & Sutomo, I. O. (2017). Tata Cara Penanganan Perkara Pidana Korporasi. Jakarta: KPK Bekerjasama Mahkamah Agung RI.
Aven, B. L. (2015). The Paradox of Corrupt Networks: An Analysis of Organizational Crime at Enron. Organization Science, 26(4), 980–996. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.0983
Boisvert, A.-M. (1999). Corporate Criminal Liability. Montreal.
Crime Without Conviction: The Rise of Deferred and Non Prosecution Agreements. (2005, December 28). Retrieved August 3, 2022, from corporatecrimereporter.com website: https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/crime-without-conviction-the-rise-of-deferred-and-non-prosecution-agreements-2/
de Maglie, C. (2005). Models of Corporate Criminal Liability in Comparative Law. Washington University Global Studies Law Review, 4(3), 547–566.
Erskine, T. (2003). Introduction: Making Sense of ‘Responsibility’ in International Relations - Key Questions and Concepts. In Can Institutions Have Responsibilities? (pp. 1–16). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403938466_1
Fisse, B., & Braithwaite, J. (1994). Corporations, Crime and Accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511659133
Global Corruption Barometer. (2020).
Henning, P. J. (2009). Corporate Criminal Liability and the Potential for Rehabilitation. The American Criminal Law Review, 46.
Indonesia vs PT. Puguk Sakti Permai Putusan Mahkamah Agung RI No. No. 1360 K/PID.SUS/2017. (2017). Jakarta.
Jelang Vonis PT NKE dan Momentum Berantas Koorporasi Korup. (2019, January 3). Retrieved August 3, 2022, from cnnindonesia.com website: https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20190103142320-12-358222/jelang-vonis-pt-nke-dan-momentum-berantas-koorporasi-korup
Joyce, P. (2006). Criminal Justice: An Introduction to Crime and the Criminal Justice System. Devon: Willan Publishing.
Laporan Tahunan KPK. (2018). Jakarta: Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK).
Luna, E. (2009). The Curious Case of Corporate Criminality. American Criminal Law Review, 46. Retrieved from https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlufac/94
Muladi, & Priyatno, D. (2010). Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi. Jakarta: Kencana.
Mulyati, N. (2018). Pertanggung Jawaban Pidana Korporasi. Depok: Raja Grafindo Persada.
Murphy, J. G. (1987). Does Kant Have a Theory of Punishment? Columbia Law Review, 87(3), 509. https://doi.org/10.2307/1122669
Pieth, M., & Ivory, R. (2011). Emergence and Convergence: Corporate Criminal Liability Principles in Overview. In Corporate Criminal Liability (pp. 3–60). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0674-3_1
Singer, R. G., & Fond, J. Q. La. (2007). Criminal Law (The Examples & Explanations Series) (4th Editio). Austin: Wolters Kluwer.
Suhariyanto, B. (2018). Kedudukan Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 13 Tahun 2016 Dalam Mengatasi Kendala Penanggulangan Tindak Pidana Korporasi (The Role Of Regulation Of The Supreme Court Number 13 Year 2016 In Overcoming Obstacles Of Corporate Criminal Infringement). Negara Hukum: Membangun Hukum Untuk Keadilan Dan Kesejahteraan, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.22212/jnh.v9i1.855
Syarif, M. (2017, March 6). Kejagung Ancam Tindak Tegas Korporasi Korupsi. Retrieved August 4, 2022, from neraca.co.id website: https://www.neraca.co.id/article/81980/kejagung-ancam-tindak-tegas-korporasi-korupsi
TPK Berdasarkan Instansi. (2018, December 31). Retrieved August 4, 2022, from acch.kpk.go.id website: https://acch.kpk.go.id/id/statistik/tindak-pidana-korupsi/tpk-berdasarkan-instansi
Undang-undang (UU) tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. (1999). Indonesia: LN. 1999/ No. 140, TLN NO.3874, LL Setneg.
United Nations Convention against Corruption. (2004). Geneva.
Wells, C. (2011). Corporate Criminal Liability in England and Wales: Past, Present, and Future. In Corporate Criminal Liability (pp. 91–112). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0674-3_3
Yuliani, P. A. (2022, August 3). Pertama Kali, KPK Tetapkan Korporasi Sebagai Pelaku Pencucian Uang. Retrieved August 3, 2022, from mediaindonesia.com website: https://mediaindonesia.com/politik-dan-hukum/161697/pertama-kali-kpk-tetapkan-korporasi-sebagai-pelaku-pencucian-uang