Analisis Prosedur Dan Standar Pembuktian Dalam Non Conviction Base Asset Forfeiture Di Indonesia

ayat (3) “Pengadilan sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (2) harus memutus dalam waktu paling lama 7 (tujuh) hari.”

[6] Indonesia. Undang-Undang tentang Pencegahan dan Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Pencucian Uang, UU No. 8 Tahun 2010, LN. No. Tahun, TLN. Pasal 2.

Dalam Pasal 2 UU No. 8 Tahun 2010, 26 predicate crime yang dimaksud adalah sebagai berikut:

1. Korupsi;
2. Penyuapan;
3. Narkotika;
4. Psikotropika;
5. Penyelundupan tenaga kerja;
6. Penyelundupan imigran;
7. Di bidang perbankan;
8. Di bidang pasar modal;
9. Di bidang perasuransian;
10. Kepabeanan;
11. Cukai;
12. Perdagangan orang;
13. Perdagangan senjata gelap;
14. Terorisme;
15. Penculikan;
16. Pencurian;
17. Penggelapan;
18. Penipuan;
19. Pemalsuan uang;
20. Perjudian;
21. Prostitusi;
22. Di bidang perpajakan;
23. Di bidang kehutanan;
24. Di bidang lingkungan hidup;
25. Di bidang kelautan dan perikanan; atau
26. Tindak pidana lain yang diancam dengan pidana penjara 4 (empat) tahun atau lebih.

[7] Ibid. Pasal 67 ayat (2).

[8] Menurut Greenberg, Samuel, Grant, dan Gray dalam Buku “Stolen Asset Recovery: A Good Practice for Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture”, ruang lingkup konsep NCB dapat digunakan dalam berbagai keadaan, seperti yang dinyatakan sebagai berikut,

“NCB asset forfeiture is useful in variety of context, particularly when criminal forfeiture is not possible or available (see box 2 for case examples), as in the following examples:

1. The violator is a fugitive. A criminal conviction is not possible if accused is a fugitive.
2. The violator is dead or dies before conviction. Death brings an end to criminal proceedings.
3. The violator is immune from criminal prosecution.
4. The violator is so powerful that a criminal investigation or prosecution is unrealistic or impossible.
5. The violator is unknown and assets are found (four examples, assets found in the hands of a courier who is not involved in the commission of the criminal offense). If the asset is derived from crime, an owner or violator may unwilling to defend civil recovery proceedings for fear that this would lead to criminal prosecution. This uncertainty makes a criminal prosecution of a violator very difficult, if not impossible.
6. The relevant property is held by a third party who was not been charged with a criminal offense but is aware – or is willfully blind to the fact – that the property is tainted. While criminal forfeiture may not reach the property held by bona fide third parties, NCB asset can forfeit the property from third party without a bona fide defense.
7. There is insufficient evidence to proceed with criminal prosecution.

In such scenarios, NCB asset forfeiture is possible because it is an in rem action against the property, not the person, or a criminal conviction is not required, or both. NCB asset forfeiture can also useful in the following situations:

1. The violator has been acquitted of underlying criminal offense as a result of lack of admissible evidence or failure of meeting the burden of proof. This applies in jurisdictions in which NCB asset forfeiture is established of a standard of proof that is lower than the criminal conviction standard. While there may be insufficient evidence for a criminal conviction beyond reasonable doubt, there still could be sufficient evidence to show the assets are derived from illegal activity on a balance probabilities.
2. The forfeiture is uncontested. In jurisdiction in which NCB asset forfeiture is conducted as a civil proceeding, default judgment procedures are used to forfeit the assets, resulting in tie and cost savings.”

[9] Bunyi Pasal 74 UU No. 8 Tahun 2010 adalah sebagai berikut, “Penyidikan tindak pidana Pencucian Uang dilakukan oleh penyidik tindak pidana asal sesuai dengan ketentuan hukum acaradan ketentuan perundang-undangan, kecuali ditentukan lain menurut Undang-Undang ini.” Penulis memiliki kritik terhadap pengaturan Pasal 74 ini sebab rumusan pasal dimaksud sebenarnya memiliki rumusan tentang penyidik yang luas, sehingga bisa memasukkan Penyidik Pegawai Negeri Sipil (PPNS) di berbagai Kementrian semisal Kementerian Tenaga kerja dan Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup, Penyidik Polisi Militer TNI, dan penyidik Otoritas Jasa Keuangan, namun di sisi lain Penjelasan Pasal 74 UU No. 8 Tahun 2015 dalam rumusannya membatasi definisi penyidik dalam UU tersebut hanya berasal dari penyidik Polri, Kejaksaan, KPK, BNN, Direktorat Jenderal Pajak, dan Direktorat Jenderal Bea dan Cukai, sehingga menurut penulis rumusan penjelasan Pasal 74 ini adalah sesuatu hal yang tidak perlu sebab akan membatasi kewenangan penegakan hukum tindak pidana pencucian uang oleh penyidik di luar penyidik Polri, Kejaksaan, KPK, BNN, Direktorat Jenderal Pajak, dan Direktorat Jenderal Bea dan Cukai padahal di sisi lain berdasarkan rumusan pasal mengenai 26 jenis predicate crime mereka juga berwenang untuk menyidik tindak pidana pencucian uang juga.

[10] Op. Cit. PERMA No. 1 Tahun 2013. Pasal 2 ayat (1).

[11] Ibid. Pasal 2 ayat (2).

[12] Ibid. Pasal 3.