EFEKTIVITAS RESTITUSI KERUGIAN NEGARA DALAM TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI DI BUMN BERBASIS KEMANFAATAN

Laila Mauluda Tunnisa; Ummi Farhah Usman

doi:10.24252/al-daulah.v14i2.57619

Authors

Laila Mauluda Tunnisa universitas gadjah mada
Ummi Farhah Usman International Islamic University, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24252/al-daulah.v14i2.57619

Keywords:

Corruption, SOEs, Restitution, State Loss, Substantive Justice, Public Benefit

Abstract

Research Objective: This study analyzes the effectiveness of state loss restitution in State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) corruption cases in Indonesia, employing utilitarian justice theory to diagnose barriers impeding asset recovery and to formulate a comprehensive utility-based reform framework. Research Method: An empirical juridical methodology with a descriptive-analytical qualitative approach was adopted, drawing upon court decisions, statutory instruments, institutional reports, and comparative international data from 212 SOE corruption cases documented by Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) between 2016 and 2023. Results: Aggregate state losses reached IDR 64 trillion (approximately USD 4 billion), yet asset recovery averaged merely 10.1% annually, well below international benchmarks, revealing five interconnected systemic failure dimensions. Findings and Implications: The identified failures encompass normative gaps in Article 18 of the Anti-Corruption Law, compounded by Law No. 1 of 2025 on SOEs; fragmented institutional coordination; weak digital forensic capacity; inadequate whistleblower protection; and the absence of non-conviction-based asset forfeiture mechanisms. These findings carry implications beyond Indonesia, extending to emerging-economy jurisdictions facing analogous SOE governance challenges. Conclusion: Ineffective restitution reflects systemic failure rooted in regulatory deficiencies, inter-institutional discoordination, and the absence of adequate legal instruments, necessitating a comprehensive, coordinated multi-pillar reform approach. Contribution: This study advances a utility-based restitution framework that repositions asset recovery as a social welfare instrument rather than mere fiscal accounting, encompassing regulatory reconstitution, establishment of an Asset Recovery Agency, blockchain-integrated monitoring, strengthened international mutual legal assistance, and public-benefit earmarking of recovered assets. Limitations and Suggestions: Reliance on publicly available documents potentially omits undocumented cases, while the qualitative approach limits statistical generalizability. Future research should pursue cross-country empirical comparisons, concrete blockchain-based monitoring pilots, and a systematic evaluation of the effects of Law No. 1 of 2025 on anti-corruption governance.

References

Abdul Raof, Nurazlina binti Abdul Raof, Norazlina Abdul Aziz, and Nurazhani Abdul Raof. “Recovery of Corrupt Assets via Unexplained Wealth Order.” Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal 6, no. 17 (August 15, 2021): 175–81. https://doi.org/10.21834/ebpj.v6i17.2828.

Admin. “KPK RI Latih 164 Penegak Hukum Tangani Perkara Korupsi.” Sultrakini.Com. July 31, 2017. https://sultrakini.com/kpk-ri-latih-164-penegak-hukum-tangani-perkara-korupsi/?noamp=mobile.

Akbar, Nawir Arsyad. “212 Kasus Korupsi Di Tubuh BUMN Pada 2016-2023, Negara Rugi Rp 64 T.” Kompas.Com. 2025. https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2025/05/09/14490691/212-kasus-korupsi-di-tubuh-bumn-pada-2016-2023-negara-rugi-rp-64-t.

Andaru, F Mario, and Bernadetta Paradintya Utami. “The Convergence of 5.0 and Forensic Accounting: Leveraging Blockchains for Effective Corruption Prevention in Indonesia.” Asia Pacific Fraud Journal 9, no. 1 (June 1, 2024): 17–26. https://doi.org/10.21532/apfjournal.v9i1.338.

Apriliyanti, Indri Dwi, and Stein Oluf Kristiansen. “The Logics of Political Business in State-Owned Enterprises: The Case of Indonesia.” International Journal of Emerging Markets 14, no. 5 (December 2, 2019): 709–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-08-2018-0433.

Artha Kariasmarico, Maroni Maroni, and Emilia Susanti. “Upaya Pengembalian Kerugian Negara Melalui Kebijakan Pidana Uang Pengganti Tindak Pidana Korupsi.” Jurnal Nakula : Pusat Ilmu Pendidikan, Bahasa Dan Ilmu Sosial 3, no. 6 (July 31, 2025): 171–83. https://doi.org/10.61132/nakula.v3i6.2326.

Bayuaji, Rihantoro, and Fikri Hadi. “Asset Recovery In Corruption Cases In Indonesia: A Human Rights Perspective.” Fiat Justisia: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 19, no. 1 (March 21, 2025): 93–112. https://doi.org/10.25041/fiatjustisia.v19no1.4024.

Bentham, Jeremy. “An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.” In The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham: An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, edited by J. H. Burns and H. L. A. Hart. Oxford University Press, 1789. https://doi.org/10.1093/oseo/instance.00077240.

Braithwaite, John. “Restorative Justice and a Better Future.” In Restorative Justice: Critical Issues, edited by E. McLaughlin, R. Fergusson, and G. Hughes and L, 83–97. London: Sage Publication Inc, 2003. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315200361-15.

Brun, Jean-Pierre, Jeanne Hauch, Rita Julien, Jeffrey Owens, and Yoonhee Hur. Unexplained Wealth Orders: Toward a New Frontier in Asset Recovery. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1596/39942.

Brusca, Isabel, Francesca Manes Rossi, and Natalia Aversano. “Accountability and Transparency to Fight against Corruption: An International Comparative Analysis.” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 20, no. 5 (October 20, 2018): 486–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2017.1393951.

Budiana, I Nyoman, and Mila Rahayu Damayanti. “Authority of the Corruption Eradication Commission After the Promulgation of Law Number 19 of 2019 About the Eradication Commission Corruption Crime.” Asian Journal of Engineering, Social and Health 3, no. 10 (October 16, 2024): 2240–56. https://doi.org/10.46799/ajesh.v3i10.421.

Campos, Nicolás, Eduardo Engel, Ronald D. Fischer, and Alexander Galetovic. “The Ways of Corruption in Infrastructure: Lessons from the Odebrecht Case.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 35, no. 2 (May 1, 2021): 171–90. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.35.2.171.