CRIMINAL SANCTIONS OF IMPOVERISHMENT AGAINST CORRUPTORS IN THE ERADICATION OF CORRUPTION CRIMES IN INDONESIA
Published:
2026-04-18Downloads
Abstract
This research is motivated by the fact that criminal sanctions given to perpetrators of corruption do not provide any deterrent effect at all, instead causing the number of corruption cases in Indonesia to increase. So it is necessary to make a new breakthrough in criminal sanctions against corruptors, namely in the form of impoverishment. The formulation of the problem in this research is how are the regulations and concepts of criminal sanctions for impoverishment against corruptors in eradicating criminal acts of corruption in Indonesia? The research method used is normative juridical with a conceptual approach method and a legislative approach. The prevailing laws and regulations, especially the Corruption Law, do not yet contain explicit provisions that regulate impoverishment as a form of criminal punishment. Therefore, legal reform is needed by adding articles on impoverishment in the Corruption Law by grouping them based on the amount of state losses and the proportional distribution of assets. This is done because the Criminal Asset Confiscation Bill does not specifically regulate corruption, but rather several criminal acts. Impoverishment of corruptors is not enough just by confiscating assets from the proceeds of crime, but also needs to include complete confiscation of assets and restrictions on the rights and social dignity of perpetrators of corruption. The impoverishment mechanism for corruptors can be seen in the Criminal Asset Confiscation Bill, namely by confiscating assets without waiting for a criminal verdict, which allows the state to confiscate and take back assets from the proceeds of crime in certain situations such as the perpetrator being a fugitive, deceased, unknown, or unable to be prosecuted.
References
Alfitra. (2015). Pemiskinan terhadap Pelaku Tindak Pidana Korupsi dalam Perspektif Hukum Pidana Positif dan Hukum Pidana Islam. MIQOT, 39(1), 95.
Amiruddin, & Asikin, Z. (2012). Pengantar Metodologi Penelitian Hukum. Raja Grafindo Persada.
Brad Michael, P., & Ratna Sari Hariyanto, D. (2022). Sanksi Pidana Pemiskinan Sebagai Upaya Penanggulangan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Jurnal Kertha Wicara, 11(12), 1875–1884.
Hamdi, B. S. (2018). Efektivitas Hukum Pencabutan Hak Dipilih terhadap Koruptor dalam Pemberantasan Korupsi. Lex Renaissance, 3(2), 246.
Hatta, M. (2019). Kejahatan Luar Biasa (Extra Ordinary Crime) (1st ed.). Unimal Press.
Hendarto, D. H., Ismunarno, & Setyanto, B. (2021). Analisis Penerapan Pasal 3 Juncto Pasal 18 Ayat (1) Huruf b Undang-Undang No. 31 Tahun 1999 Tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi dalam Kasus Korupsi Karen Agustiawan (Studi Kasus Putusan No.15 K/Pid.Sus-TPK/2019/PN Jkt.Pst). Recidive, 10(2), 125–131.
Jaya, N. S. P. (2008). Beberapa Pemikiran Kearah Pengembangan Hukum Pidana. Citra Aditya Bakti.
Osifo, O. C. (2014). An Ethical Governance Perspective on Anti-Corruption Policies and Procedures: Agencies and Trust in Cameroon, Ghana, and Nigeria Evaluation. International Journal of Public Administration, 37(5), 308–327.
Sadeli, W. H. (2010). Implikasi Perampasan Aset terhadap Pihak Ketiga yang Terkait dengan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Universitas Indonesia.
Siregar, M. (2024). Teori Hukum Progresif dalam Konsep Negara Hukum Indonesia. Muhammadiyah Law Review, 8(2), 1–15.
Sunggono, B. (2003). Metodelogi Penelitian Hukum. Raja Grafindo Persada.
Surahmad. (2016). Kontroversi Kebijakan Hukuman Mati Bagi Koruptor di Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmiah Kebijakan Nasional & Internasional, 2(3), 23.
Suyono, Y. U. (2018). Teori Hukum Pidana dalam Penerapan Pasal di KUHP. Unitomo Press.
Yani, A. (2019). Pemiskinan Korupsi sebagai Salah Satu Hukuman Alternatif dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Jurnal Ilmiah Magister Ilmu Hukum, 2(1), 37.
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Mukhammad Ardiansyah Tri Saputra, Abdul Rokhim, Nofi Sri Utami
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
