Legal Certainty in Money Laundering Prosecutions in Indonesia: A Focus on Corruption as a Predicate Crime Tofik Yanuar Chandra

Tofik Chandra

Authors

Tofik Yanuar Chandra Faculty of Law, Universitas Jayabaya, East Jakarta, Jakarta 13210, Indonesia

Keywords:

Legal Certainty, Evidence, Corruption, Money Laundering, Predicate Crime

Abstract

The offense of money laundering is intrinsically linked to a prior criminal act, known as a predicate crime, as the assets involved, whether placed, transferred, or integrated, originate from it. Notably, when establishing a money laundering offense, it is not obligatory to establish the underlying crime first. This underscores the inherent association between money laundering and its predicate crime. This study aims to advance our comprehension of legal certainty in proving money laundering when corruption serves as the underlying offense. Furthermore, it seeks to delve deeper into the notion of ideal evidence in cases where corruption acts as the predicate crime. Employing a qualitative approach with a normative juridical perspective, the research findings reveal that Indonesia has chosen a strategy of limited and balanced reverse evidence, rather than pure or absolute reverse evidence, to protect the rights of defendants. In the context of substantiating money laundering offenses, substantial and comprehensive reforms are imperative to streamline the evidentiary process, thus ensuring legal certainty. The prompt enactment of the Draft Law on Asset Confiscation is crucial to bolster the effectiveness of law enforcement agencies in combating money laundering in Indonesia. This legislation would encompass the confiscation of assets stemming from money laundering crimes, thereby facilitating a more efficient law enforcement procedure.

Abstrak

Tindak pidana pencucian uang pada hakikatnya ada kaitannya dengan tindak pidana yang telah terjadi sebelumnya, yang dikenal sebagai tindak pidana asal, karena harta kekayaan yang terlibat, baik ditempatkan, dialihkan, atau disatukan, berasal dari tindak pidana tersebut. Khususnya, ketika menetapkan suatu tindak pidana pencucian uang, tidak wajib untuk menetapkan terlebih dahulu kejahatan yang mendasarinya. Hal ini menggarisbawahi hubungan yang melekat antara pencucian uang dan kejahatan asal. Kajian ini bertujuan untuk meningkatkan pemahaman kita mengenai kepastian hukum dalam membuktikan pencucian uang ketika korupsi menjadi pelanggaran utama. Lebih lanjut, tulisan ini berupaya menggali lebih dalam pengertian alat bukti ideal dalam kasus-kasus dimana korupsi merupakan tindak pidana asal. Dengan menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif dan berperspektif yuridis normatif, temuan penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Indonesia memilih strategi pembuktian terbalik yang terbatas dan seimbang, dibandingkan pembuktian terbalik yang murni atau mutlak, untuk melindungi hak-hak terdakwa. Dalam konteks pembuktian tindak pidana pencucian uang, reformasi yang substansial dan komprehensif sangat penting untuk menyederhanakan proses pembuktian, sehingga menjamin kepastian hukum. Pengesahan RUU Perampasan Aset yang cepat sangat penting untuk meningkatkan efektivitas lembaga penegak hukum dalam memerangi pencucian uang di Indonesia. Undang-undang ini akan mencakup penyitaan aset yang berasal dari kejahatan pencucian uang, sehingga memfasilitasi prosedur penegakan hukum yang lebih efisien.

Kata kunci: Kepastian Hukum, Barang Bukti, Korupsi, Pencucian Uang, Kejahatan AsaL

References

Alldridge, Peter. “The moral limits of the crime of money laundering.” Buffalo Criminal Law Review 5, no. 1 (2001): 279-319.

Allen, Ronald J., and Alex Stein. “Evidence, probability, and burden of proof.” Ariz. L. Rev. 55 (2013): 557.

Aluko, Ayodeji, and Mahmood Bagheri. “The impact of money laundering on economic and financial stability and on political development in developing countries: The case of Nigeria.” Journal of Money Laundering Control 15, no. 4 (2012): 442-457.

Buchanan, Bonnie. “Money laundering—a global obstacle.” Research in International Business and Finance 18, no. 1 (2004): 115-127.

Butt, Simon. Corruption and law in Indonesia. London: Routledge, (2017), 36-40.

De Sousa, Luís. “A nti-corruption agencies: between empowerment and irrelevance.” Crime, law and social change53 (2010): 5-22.

Ferguson, Pamela R. “The presumption of innocence and its role in the criminal process.” In Criminal Law Forum, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 131-158. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 2016.

Gilmour, Nicholas, Tristram Hicks, and Simon Dilloway. “Examining the practical viability of internationally recognised standards in preventing the movement of money for the purposes of terrorism: A crime script approach.” Journal of Financial Crime 24, no. 2 (2017): 260-276.

Isra, Saldi, Feri Amsari, and Hilaire Tegnan. “Obstruction of justice in the effort to eradicate corruption in Indonesia.” International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 51 (2017): 72-83.

Jeffries Jr, John Calvin, and Paul B. Stephan III. “Defenses, presumptions, and burden of proof in the criminal law.” Yale Lj88 (1978): 1325.

Karklins, Rasma. The system made me do it: corruption in post-communist societies. London: Routledge, 2016.

Levi, Michael, and William Gilmore. “Terrorist finance, money laundering and the rise and rise of mutual evaluation: a new paradigm for crime control?.” Financing terrorism (2002): 87-114.

Lord, Nicholas J. “Responding to transnational corporate bribery using international frameworks for enforcement: Anti-bribery and corruption in the UK and Germany.” Criminology & Criminal Justice 14, no. 1 (2014): 100-120.

Mugarura, Norman. “The institutional framework against money laundering and its underlying predicate crimes.” Journal of financial regulation and compliance 19, no. 2 (2011): 174-194.

Mugarura, Norman. “Uncoupling the relationship between corruption and money laundering crimes.” Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance 24, no. 1 (2016): 74-89.

Nkoane, Paul. “The Prevention of Organised Crime Act: the proving of “instrumentality” in cases of obscured use of intangible things.” Stellenbosch Law Review 27, no. 1 (2016): 182-202.

Norton, Simon D. “Suspicion of money laundering reporting obligations: Auditor compliance, or sceptical failure to engage?.” Critical Perspectives on Accounting 50 (2018): 56-66.

Schanzenbach, Max M., and Emerson H. Tiller. “Reviewing the sentencing guidelines: Judicial politics, empirical evidence, and reform.” The University of Chicago Law Review 75, no. 2 (2008): 715-760.

Sittlington, Samuel, and Jackie Harvey. “Prevention of money laundering and the role of asset recovery.” Crime, Law and Social Change 70 (2018): 421-441.

Sutrisno, Tri. “Reconstruction Setting About The System Of Profitabilityin The Criminal Money Laundering.” Southeast Asia Journal of Contemporary Business, Economics and Law14 (2017): 53-59.

Teichmann, Fabian Maximilian Johannes. “Twelve methods of money laundering.” Journal of money laundering control 20, no. 2 (2017): 130-137.

Unger, Brigitte, and Frans Van Waarden. “How to dodge drowning in data? Rule-and risk-based anti money laundering policies compared.” Review of Law & Economics 5, no. 2 (2009): 953-985.

Walker, John. “How big is global money laundering?.” Journal of Money Laundering Control 3, no. 1 (1999): 25-37.

Wibowo, Muhtar Hadi. “Corporate Responsibility in Money Laundering Crime (Perspective Criminal Law Policy in Crime of Corruption in Indonesia).” JILS 3 (2018): 213.