Law Enforcers Of Origin Confiscate Assets Related To Jiwasraya-Asabri, Assessed As A Violation Of Human Rights And A Form Of Social Injustice

Illustration. (Photo: Unsplash)

JAKARTA - Confiscation and confiscation of public assets that are not related to criminal acts of corruption have the potential to violate human rights. According to the Criminal Law expert at Al Azhar University, Suparji Ahmad, the current formulaic policy for confiscation of assets resulting from criminal acts of corruption is contained in Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption in conjunction with Law 20 of 2001.

According to him, the policy of confiscation of assets, especially in order to fulfill replacement money, through a criminal law mechanism can only be confiscated if the perpetrator of the crime by the court has been handed down a decision that has permanent legal force (inkracht).

"So if the court's decision is not yet final and binding, then additional penalties in the form of confiscation of assets or replacement money cannot be executed," said Suparji to reporters, Thursday, July 29.

As previously reported, the Attorney General's Office is suspected of confiscation of public and corporate assets that are not related to the Jiwasraya-Asabri corruption case. Even the victims are currently taking legal action by filing objections and filing a lawsuit against the prosecutor's actions that confiscate and auction assets that are suspected to be illegal.

"Even based on non-conviction based asset forfeiture, the confiscation of assets that cannot be legally proven from the origin of the asset cannot be justified," he said again.

If it is related to human rights, Suparji said that the confiscation could cause a conflict with the principle of presumption of innocence.

"The right to ownership of assets by citizens must be protected and respected by the state, so the defendant needs to explain before the court that the assets were obtained legally, and file an objection in court in accordance with Article 79 paragraph 5 of the Money Laundering Law," he said.

Based on Article 28G paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, it is stated that everyone has the right to personal protection, family, honor, dignity, and property under his control, and has the right to a sense of security and protection from the threat of fear to do or not do something. which is a human right.

In his decision the judge must see that the confiscated goods must meet the criteria stipulated in Article 39 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code in conjunction with Article 18 of the Anti-Corruption Law. While in the context of Law no. 8 of 2020 concerning money laundering offenses states that third parties with good intentions are defined as those who are not at all involved in the criminal criminal process, are not aware of their existence being used or exploited by criminal actors, and have no relationship and are not under the power or orders of the perpetrators of money laundering.

Meanwhile, according to normative legal research conducted by Criminal Law Expert Patra M Zen, criminal law in Indonesia is very limited in regulating the legal protection of bona fide third parties in relation to property rights. As a result, there are injustices and violations of third party property rights in the legal process of corruption and money laundering cases.

This was conveyed by Patra in his book entitled 'Protection of Third Parties with Good Intentions: On Assets in Criminal Cases'. In his book he also mentions that the confiscation of assets in a case is often carried out without a verification process and only based on witness statements.

On the other hand, he continued, the decision to seize assets, whether it is evidence or assets suspected of being related to a crime, must be proven through examination and verification. Moreover, there are currently many cases of objections from third parties to the Tipikor District Court regarding the decision to confiscate third party assets.

"Often the panel of judges does not explain the basic reasons and evidence to support their belief in the decision to confiscate assets. This creates injustice and rights violations for third parties who have good intentions in a case," said Patra.

He also explained that Article 19 of the Anti-Corruption Law could actually be a way for those who object to file a civil lawsuit. However, Zen admits that there is little regulation regarding third-party protection.

Another thing that becomes a problem, namely Article 19 of the Anti-Corruption Law, concerns the definition of a third party with good intentions.

"But the problem is that they have never been presented and examined to prove the assets confiscated in the trial of the defendant's case," he said.

Of the 12 decisions studied in his dissertation, Patra found irrationality in the due process of law cases of corruption and money laundering. "There have been injustices and human rights violators in the due process of law in corruption and money laundering cases in this country," explained Patra.

"If the assets owned by third parties have not been guaranteed legal protection, it will weaken the realization of social justice," he wrote.

As is known, there are currently more than 102 objections filed with the Jakarta Tipikor District Court regarding the seizure of assets involving thousands of parties in the law enforcement process over the corruption and default cases of PT Asuransi Jiwasraya. This includes objections from more than 26 thousand customers of WanaArtha insurance policyholders whose securities sub-accounts were also confiscated.

Lawsuits also emerged from a number of investors and companies investing in the stock exchange, following the Corruption Court's decision to seize assets in the form of shares, securities accounts which are suspected to be related to the flow of funds from the convicts of the corruption case.