Oloan Harahap, Radar (2025) Kepastian Hukum Terhadap Pelaksanaan Pidana Tambahan Uang Pengganti Dalam Pengembalian Keuangan Negara Pada Pelaku Tindak Pidana Korupsi Di Kota Dumai. Other thesis, Universitas Islam Riau.

Text 211021080.pdf - Submitted Version Restricted to Registered users only Download (4MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

Article 18 of Law Number 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law Number 20 of 2001 Concerning the Eradication of Corruption Crimes explains that if the convict does not pay replacement money after a court decision that has permanent legal force then his property which is not the result of corruption can be confiscated by the prosecutor however, in the event that the convict does not have sufficient property to pay the replacement money, he shall be punished with imprisonment. However, in carrying out the execution of replacement money, many of the convicts paid part of the replacement money decision or did not pay replacement money so that in the event that state financial returns were not carried out, it hampered national development. The main problem in this research is about the process of carrying out criminal executions for additional replacement money in corruption crimes and weaknesses in implementing replacement money payments in the City of Dumai. The research method used in this study uses a sociological research approach, while from its nature this research is a descriptive research. Sociological research is research on legal aspects relating to the main issues to be discussed and related to field realities. This research was conducted at the Pekanbaru District Court Class 1 A and the Dumai District Attorney. In the results of the research problem, there are two main things that can be concluded. Firstly, the process of carrying out the execution of additional criminal compensation for criminal acts of corruption is based on Supreme Court Regulation Number 5 of 2014 concerning Additional Criminal Replacement Money for Corruption Crimes and based on Prosecutor's Regulation Number 19 of 2020 concerning Settlement of Replacement Money decided by the Court, complete with interviews with The Head of Special Crimes at the Dumai District Prosecutor's Office with a sequence that begins with the collection stage carried out by the prosecutor as the executor, supervised by the Head of Criminal Investigation and the Head of Intelligence who will investigate the assets of the accused, then the payment stage. Replacement money for the amount that must be paid by those convicted of corruption in accordance with the amount of -The amount is the same as the property obtained if it is not paid, then the property can be confiscated by the prosecutor and then the auction stage will cover the replacement money. In addition, if after the assets are confiscated their value is not sufficient to pay replacement money, the convict will be sentenced to imprisonment for a period not exceeding the maximum penalty of the principal sentence. Second, the weaknesses in the implementation of the execution of replacement money are that the convict does not pay replacement money, the clerk's procedural delay in sending the final decision file so that the prosecutor is slow to execute the replacement money, there is no synergy between the Ministry of Finance and the Prosecutor's Office, the assets are not in the name of the defendant, so efforts should be made by the prosecutor's office. carry out asset recovery tracking. Keywords: Executor, Substitute Money, Corruption Crime

Actions (login required)

View Item