Corruption, asset origin and the criminal case of money laundering in Indonesian law
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JMLC-03-2021-0022 |
| Published date | 17 August 2021 |
| Date | 17 August 2021 |
| Pages | 455-466 |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance,Financial risk/company failure,Financial compliance/regulation,Financial crime |
| Author | Mahrus Ali,Syarif Nurhidayat,Muhammad Shidqon Prabowo,Rusli Muhammad |
Corruption, asset origin and the
criminal case of money laundering
in Indonesian law
Mahrus Ali and Syarif Nurhidayat
Faculty of Law, Universitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Muhammad Shidqon Prabowo
Faculty of Law, Universitas Wahid Hasyim, Semarang, Indonesia, and
Rusli Muhammad
Faculty of Law, Universitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Abstract
Purpose –This study aims to investigate Indonesian regulation of Article 69 of the Money Laundering
Criminal Act (TPPU) related to proving predicate crimes, as it leaves a debate whether it must be proven
beforehandor not.
Design/methodology/approach –This researchis a normative juridical study, in addition to examining
the views of criminal law expertson the formulation of Article 69 of the TPPU Law; it is also extended to the
practiceof prosecutionand court decisions in TPPU cases.
Findings –The results of this studyshow that there are two views related to the obligation to not provethe
corruption in the ML case. The first view states that the origin of corruption must be proven, especially
because ML is a follow-up crime, so it is necessaryto prove corrosive crime as one of the predicate offenses.
The second view states that the predicate offense of corruption does not have to be proven beforehand
because TPPUis an independentoffense.
Originality/value –This research focuses on analyzing whether or not it is obligatory to prove the
originalcrime of corruption in the money laundering case.
Keywords Corruption, Indonesia, Money laundering, Asset origin
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Money laundering (TPPU) is a crime aimedat obscuring the origin of assets from a criminal
act so that the assets seem to originate from legitimate activities either through placement,
layering or integration (Amrani, 2015). Assets in ML (TPPU) are the results of predicate
offenses. Without predicateoffenses, ML is impossible. Therefore, ML is also referredto as a
follow-up crime (Hamzah, 2017). As a follow-up crime, ML actually depends on predicate
crimes (Yanuar, 2020). Corruption is a form of predicate crime as regulated in Article 2
paragraph (1) of Law Number 8 of 2010 concerning the Prevention and Eradication of the
Crime of Money Laundering (TPPULaw).
ML (TPPU) poses a serious threat to the legal andeconomic system. It also affects
the integrity of financial institutions and even changes the strength of the economy
in certain sectors. If left untreated, ML will destroy the overall social order (FATF,
2009). One of the ways to prevent and eradicate ML offenses is through a process of
proof that deviates from what is regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code. Article
Money
laundering in
Indonesian law
455
Journalof Money Laundering
Control
Vol.25 No. 2, 2022
pp. 455-466
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1368-5201
DOI 10.1108/JMLC-03-2021-0022
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1368-5201.htm
To continue reading
Request your trial