Inconsistency of the Regulation of Indemnity Payment as an Asset Recovery in Eradication of Corruption in Indonesia
I Made Hendra Kusuma
I Made Hendra Kusuma
Available Online November 2018.
- https://doi.org/10.2991/icblt-18.2018.11How to use a DOI?
- asset recovery; indemnity; inconsistency; regulation
- This paper reviews the inconsistencies in the legal settlement of indemnity payments in accordance with the concept of asset recovery and examines the underlying arrangement of fixed replacement payments in the form of asset recovery without the principals having to be imprisoned. Statute and conceptual approaches to legislation were used in this study. The results indicate that the arrangement of the payment of the replacement money listed in Article 18 paragraph (1) letter b, paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of Law Number 31 Year 1999 is inconsistent, since the provisions in paragraph 3) of the article provides an opportunity to have "option" to reimburse payments in cash with imprisonment and this is not in accordance with the concept of asset recovery. The provisions contained in paragraph 3 shall be deleted and replaced by the provisions of the law which basically specify that substitute payments shall be made until completely closed (not to be replaced by prison), which can be done by seizing and auctioning the defendant property that is clearly known by the prosecutor as the executor, even if the defendant has completed his jail sentence.
- Open Access
- This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC license.
Cite this article
TY - CONF AU - I Made Hendra Kusuma PY - 2018/11 DA - 2018/11 TI - Inconsistency of the Regulation of Indemnity Payment as an Asset Recovery in Eradication of Corruption in Indonesia BT - Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Law and Local Wisdom in Tourism (ICBLT 2018) PB - Atlantis Press SP - 45 EP - 48 SN - 2352-5398 UR - https://doi.org/10.2991/icblt-18.2018.11 DO - https://doi.org/10.2991/icblt-18.2018.11 ID - Kusuma2018/11 ER -