Problematics of Execution of Assets of Convictions in Efforts Recovery of State Losses

The management of State Property originating from State-Confiscated Goods and Gratification Goods normally differentiates the position and criteria of Execution Confiscated Goods originating from State-Confiscated Goods from Execution Confiscated Goods which are assets or belongings of the convict or the convict's family, assets related to the convict, including related corporations convicts, which are confiscated by the Executing Attorney or Asset Recovery Attorney to be sold or auctioned in order to implement the fine decision. This becomes a problem for the executing prosecutor in implementing the Judge's Decision which has permanent legal force to carry out the execution of the Additional Replacement Money Crime in article 18 paragraph 2 of the Non-Corruption Crime Law. This research focuses on the problems of implementing and reformulating Article 18 paragraph 2 of Law No. 31 of 1999 concerning Corruption Crimes in an effort to recover state losses. The normative juridical research method in this research is carried out by analyzing theories, concepts, legislation and court decisions which have a correlation with asset execution problems. Methodologically, the constructivism paradigm applies the hermeneutic method in the process of reaching the truth. The results of this research are: The principle of asset execution as a criminal implementation of additional compensation money in settling state losses is the confiscation of assets resulting from crime which is actually rooted in a very fundamental principle of justice, where a crime should not provide benefits for the perpetrator (crime should not pay). This means that a person must not profit from the illegal activities he carries out. In rem confiscation is an action by the state to take over assets through a court decision in a civil case based on stronger evidence that the assets are suspected to have originated from a criminal act or were used for a criminal act. Confiscation of assets in personam, which is an action directed at an individual person, therefore requires proof of the defendant's guilt first before seizing assets from the defendant. Assets confiscated from court executions under Article 18 paragraph (2) of the Corruption Crime Law cannot yet be made into state property, because it is not concretely stated that the confiscated goods are state confiscated goods.