PERBANDINGAN NON-CONVICTION BASED ASSET FORFEITURE DAN CONVICTION-BASED ASSET FORFEITURE SEBAGAI MODEL PERAMPASAN ASET DALAM SISTEM HUKUM INDONESIA

Abstrak

Perampasan aset merupakan salah satu instrumen penting dalam pemberantasan tindak pidana, khususnya korupsi, karena keberhasilan penegakan hukum tidak hanya ditentukan oleh pemidanaan pelaku, tetapi juga kemampuan negara untuk memulihkan aset yang berasal dari tindak pidana. Dalam perkembangannya dikenal dua model utama perampasan aset, yaitu Conviction-Based Asset Forfeiture yang mensyaratkan adanya pemidanaan terhadap pelaku dan Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture yang memungkinkan perampasan terhadap aset tanpa didahului putusan pemidanaan dalam kondisi tertentu. Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis perbedaan karakteristik kedua model tersebut serta relevansinya bagi pembentukan sistem perampasan aset di Indonesia. Penelitian menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, konseptual, dan komparatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Conviction-Based Asset Forfeiture memberikan hubungan yang kuat antara pembuktian tindak pidana dan perampasan aset, tetapi dapat menghadapi hambatan ketika proses pidana tidak dapat diselesaikan.Sebaliknya,  Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture memberikan instrumen untuk memulihkan aset dalam keadaan tertentu ketika pemidanaan tidak dapat dilakukan, tetapi membutuhkan batasan pembuktian dan mekanisme perlindungan hak milik yang kuat. Oleh karena itu, pengaturan perampasan aset di Indonesia perlu menempatkan kedua model tersebut secara proporsional dengan menjadikan Conviction-Based Asset Forfeiture sebagai mekanisme utama dan Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture sebagai mekanisme khusus dengan persyaratan yang ketat, pengawasan pengadilan, dan perlindungan terhadap pihak ketiga yang beritikad baik.

Asset forfeiture is a crucial instrument in combating criminal offenses, particularly corruption, as the success of law enforcement is determined not only by the sentencing of perpetrators but also by the state's capacity to recover assets derived from criminal activity. Two primary models of asset forfeiture have emerged: conviction-based asset forfeiture, which requires a criminal conviction of the perpetrator, and non-conviction-based asset forfeiture, which allows for the forfeiture of assets without a prior criminal conviction under specific circumstances. This study aims to analyze the distinct characteristics of both models and their relevance to the development of an asset forfeiture system in Indonesia. The research employs a normative juridical method, utilizing statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. The findings indicate that while conviction-based asset forfeiture establishes a strong link between proving a criminal offense and the forfeiture of assets, it may encounter obstacles when criminal proceedings cannot be brought to a conclusion. Conversely, non-conviction-based asset forfeiture provides a mechanism for asset recovery in situations where a conviction cannot be secured; however, it necessitates clear evidentiary thresholds and robust mechanisms for the protection of property rights. Therefore, the regulation of asset forfeiture in Indonesia should integrate both models proportionally: establishing conviction-based asset forfeiture as the primary mechanism, while positioning non-conviction-based asset forfeiture as a specialized mechanism—subject to strict requirements, judicial oversight, and safeguards for third parties acting in good faith.