Judicial Considerations in Imposing Replacement Money Sanctions in Corruption Cases Involving State Land Transfer
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33506/js.v11i3.4427Keywords:
Corruption crimes, Transfer of state land, Replacement moneyAbstract
The study aims to examine and analyze the judge's consideration in the imposition of replacement money in corruption cases involving state land transfer through the lens of justice drawing on progressive legal theory, and the theory of economic analysis of law, while also assesing strategies to maximize the recovery of state financial losses through the application of replacement money.
The method of research is normative juridical method with a qualitative descriptive approach, focusing on secondary data such a legislation, court decisions, and legal literature. The research specification used is descriptive analytical.
Novelty of this research lies in highlighting analyze the effectiveness of additional criminal sanctions in the form of replacement money in corruptions offenses involving state land transfer in optimizing the recovery of state finansial losses through progressive law theory and economic analysis of law approach.
The Results indicate that the implementation of replacement money as an additional criminal sanctions is considered not to be optimal in maximizing the recovery of state financial losses, Judges' considerations in several decisions examined show that the imposition of replacement money has not implemented progressive legal theory, without considering other forms of losses impacted by corruption offenses involving state land transfer. This is due to the absence of parameters as guidelines in imposing of replacement money
Conclusion, it can be known that although Article 18 paragraph (1) letter (b) of the Corruption Law has included the amount of replacement money payments balanced with the assets/objects obtained from corruption crimes, a more progressive approach are needed to ensure that the imposition of replacement money can effectively restore the state's financial losses. Therefore, it is necessary to calculate the amount of replacement money using the NJOP indicator in corruption cases involving state land transfer in line with efforts to optimize the return of state financial losses.
References
A. Z. Abidin Farid. Bentuk-Bentuk Khusus Perwujudan Delik (Percobaan, Penyertaan dan Gabungan Delik),. Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo Persada, 2006.
Achmad Rifai. Penemuan Hukum Oleh Hakim Dalam Perspektif Hukum Progresif. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2014.
Akhiar Salmi. “Pidana Pembayaran Uang Pengganti: Dulu Kini Dan Masa Datang.” Jurnal Hukum Dan Pembangunan Edisi Khusus Dies Natalis 85 Tahun FHUI, 2009.
Atmasasmita, Romli, dan Kodrat WIbowo. Analisis Ekonomi Mikro Tentang Hukum Pidana Indonesia. Kencana: Jakarta, 2017.
Atmoko, Dwi, dan Amalia Syauket. “Penegakan Hukum Terhadap Tindak Pidana Korupsi Ditinjau Dari Perspektif Dampak Serta Upaya Pemberantasan.” Binamulia Hukum 11, no. 2 (t.t.): 2022. https://doi.org/10.37893/jbh.v11i2.732.
Bonifasius Nadya Aribowo, S.H., M.Hkes. Hasil Wawancara Mengenai Penjatuhan Pidana Tambahan Berupa Pembayaran Uang Pengganti dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi yang berkaitan dengan Pengalihan Tanah Negara, 15 Januari 2025.
Dimas Arya Aziza. “Penerapan Delik Jabatan Dalam Pasal 3 Dan Pasal 11 Undang-Undang Nomor 39 Tahun 1999 Jo Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 Tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi.” Jurnal Binamulia Hukum 7, no. 2 (2018).
Fontian Munzil dan Imas Rosidawati Wr. “Kesebandingan Pidana Uang Pengganti dan Pengganti Pidana Uang Pengganti dalam Rangka Melindungi Hak Ekonomis Negara dan Kepastian Hukum.” Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM 22, no. 1 (t.t.).
Ghozali, Elizabeth. “Kebijakan Pengembalian Kerugian Keuangan Negara Akibat Pidana Korupsi Melalui Pembayaran Uang Pengganti.” Jurnal Hukum Justice 1, no. 12 (2024).
Hermien Hardiati Koeswadji. Perkembangan Macam-Macam Pidana dalam Rangka Perkembangan Hukum Pidana. Bandung: PT. Citra Aditya Bakti, 1995.
Indonesia Corruption Watch. “Tren Vonis Kasus Korupsi 2023.” Indonesia: Indonesia Corruption Watch, 2023.
Indonesia, Mahkamah Agung Republik. “Laporan Tahunan 2023 Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia: Integritas Kuat Peradilan Bermartabat.” Jakarta: Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia, 2024.
Kejaksaan Agung Republik Indonesia. “Buku II Laporan Tahunan Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia Tahun 2023 Pelaksanaan Tugas dan Fungsi).” Jakarta: Kejaksaan Agung Republik Indonesia, 2024.
Komalasari, Rita, dan Cecep Mustafa. “Penguatan Upaya Pemulihan Aset: Jalan Menuju Mitigasi Korupsi Di Sektor Publik.” Integritas: Jurnal Antikorupsi 10, no. 1 (2024). https://doi.org/10.32697/integritas.v10i1.1042.
Korupsi, Komisi Pemberantasan. “KPK Ingatkan Potensi Suap Dan Pungli Di Sektor Pertanahan Dalam Proses Pengembangan Perumahan,” 2023. https://kanal24.co.id/kpk-ingatkan-potensi-suap-dan-pungli-di-sektor-pertanahan/.
M. Yanuar, Purwaning. Pengembalian Aset Hasil Korupsi. Bandung: PT. Alumni, 2007.
Mahrus Ali. Hukum Pidana Korupsi Di Indonesia. Yogyakarta: UII Press, 2011.
Prayitno, Bambang. “Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Mafia Tanah Dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi,.” Jurnal Hukum Dan Pembangunan Ekonomi 9, no. 2 (2021).
Robert Klitgaard. Membasmi Korupsi. Jakarta: Yayasan Obor, 1998.
Romli Atmasasmita. Teori Hukum Integratif: Rekonstruksi Terhadap Teori Hukum Pembangunan Dan Teori Hukum Progresif. Bandung: Mandar Maju, 2019.
Rukmini, Mien. Aspek Hukum Pidana Dan Kriminologi: Sebuah Bunga Rampai. Bandung: PT. Alumni, 2014.
Rusmiati, Elis, Nella Sumika Putri, dan Ijud Tajudin. “The Corruption Court in Indonesia: History & Development.” Central European Journal of International and Security Studies 12, no. 4 (2018). https://doi.org/10.51870/CEJISS.XKVV3716.
Satjipto Rahardjo. Penegakan Hukum Progresif. Jakarta: Kompas, 2010.
Satriana, Eri. Asset Recovery Dalam Pengembangan Hukum Pidana Nasional. Bandung: Keni Media, 2019.
Soekanto, Soerjono, dan Sri Mamudji. Penelitian Hukum Normatif: Suatu Tinjauan Singkat. Jakarta: Rajawali Press, 2001.
Yunus, Muh. Adenriz, Diana Lukitasari, dan Ismunarno. “Optimalisasi Eksekusi Pidana Uang Pengganti Melalui Pembentukan Satuan Kerja Khusus (Studi Kasus Di Kejaksaan Negeri Surakarta).” Jurnal Recidive 8, no. 3 (2019). https://doi.org/10.20961/recidive.v8i3.47324.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Jihan Shavira Yosephin Lameng, Elis Rusmiati, Rully Herdita Ramadhani
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
