PROOF OF THE ORIGINAL CRIMINAL ACT AS A CONDITION OF CONVICTION OF THE CRIMINAL ACT OF MONEY LAUNDERING (ANALYSIS OF VERDICT N0: 57/PID. SUS/2014/PN. SLR)

It is an injustice if a person who has actually received benefits from the Money Laundering Crimes but cannot be processed because the original criminal act cannot be proven, this is the reason the Constitutional Court rejected Akil Mochtars application to test Article 69 of Law Number 08 of 2010 concerning the Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering Crimes. Is this reason enough to deprive a person of their freedom and property guaranteed in our Constitution of the 1945 Constitution, especially since there is an expert opinion that states Article 69 violates the principle of Due Proces of Law which is partly adopted in the Criminal Procedure Code because it is an embodiment of the concept of the State of Law (Rechtstaat) such as the principle of presumption of innocence, the principle of non-self-incrimination and the principle of legality. In the definition of an asset forfeiture mechanism, Article 69 is a civil forfeiture of assets processed through criminal justice. The recent development of the Money Laundering Act has been believed by law enforcement to be a stand-alone criminal act. Civil forfeiture who should have pursued his property according to the principle of follow the money turned into also chasing the culprit. So, there are cases where the original perpetrator of the crime was never proven but who helped it is going to jail even though they did not enjoy the money. In fact, there are also cases where the charges are purely violations of the Money Laundering Article without any original crime. In the midst of shifting paradigms from retributive justice to restorative justice, it seems that article 69 is increasingly looming as an anomaly in the concept of the State of Law that we have adopted in the 1945 Constitution.