Legal Analysis of the Status of Evidence Proceeds of Money Laundering Crimes Encumbered by Fiduciary Guarantee

This research is motivated by the antinomy of norms between the criminal law regime in Law Number 8 of 2010 concerning the Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering, which emphasizes the confiscation of assets resulting from crime, and the civil law regime in Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees, which protects the preferential rights of good-faith creditors. This creates uncertainty regarding the legal status of objects that are simultaneously the proceeds of crime and the objects of fiduciary guarantees. This research is a normative legal study that employs statutory, case, and conceptual approaches, analyzed qualitatively using primary and secondary legal materials. The research results show that in the Jepara District Court Decision Number 81/Pid.Sus/2019/PN Jpa, the legal status of the evidence, namely the car, was determined as a criminal asset confiscated by the state. Based on the doctrine of asset confiscation in rem and the principle of nemo quod non habet, the fiduciary guarantee agreement was deemed defective in its object and null and void because the debtor lacked legal ownership rights to the assets derived from the crime. Legal protection for good-faith creditors has transformed property rights into personal collection rights against the debtor. However, this protection is weak in practice, necessitating legal reform through the ratification of the Asset Confiscation Bill, which would better guarantee justice for third parties.

Hali tarjima qilinmagan