The core issue in this research lies in the weakness of Article 18 letter a paragraph (1) and Article 38B paragraph (3) of Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning Amendments to Law Number 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption (hereinafter referred to as the Anti- Corruption Law). These provisions regulate asset forfeiture as an additional punishment, which must be pursued within the main criminal proceedings. This requirement has significant implications, particularly the delay in the recovery of state financial losses. As a result, the return of state assets lost to corruption is far from optimal. According to data from Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) in 2021, the total state losses amounted to IDR 62.5 trillion, yet only IDR 2.2 trillion was successfully recovered. This situation fails to reflect the principle of maslahah (public benefit), as the financial losses to the state remain largely unrecovered due to acts of corruption. This study aims to examine asset forfeiture through the lens of maslahah, assess the urgency of reformulating the current asset recovery regulations, and propose an ideal legal framework that supports the optimal recovery of state financial losses. The research adopts a normative legal methodology, utilizing a conceptual approach, statutory analysis, and comparative studies. The primary legal material is the Anti-Corruption Law, while secondary legal sources include books, journal articles, and research reports. The data is analyzed qualitatively. The findings of the study indicate that the confiscation of assets derived from acts of corruption embodies the value of maslahah, as such assets once returned to the state can be utilized for the public good and societal welfare. Reformulating the legal provisions concerning asset forfeiture in the Anti-Corruption Law is deemed crucial. The low rate of asset recovery provides concrete evidence of the pressing need for legal reform. The recommended reform involves introducing a mechanism for asset confiscation through civil lawsuits, without having to wait for the conclusion of criminal proceedings. This mechanism, known as Non-Conviction Based (NCB) Asset Forfeiture, has been widely implemented in various countries as a response to the complexities of modern corruption crimes. Such a regulatory framework would be more effective and capable of accelerating the process of state asset recovery, while also enhancing the efficacy of the legal system in combating corruption.
Firmansyah et al. (Fri,) studied this question.