Meiryani, Sani Muhamad Isa and Johan Muliadi Kerta
In the case of money laundering (ML) originating from the predicate crime of corruption, law enforcers find it difficult to prove all or the existence of a predicate crime on…
Abstract
Purpose
In the case of money laundering (ML) originating from the predicate crime of corruption, law enforcers find it difficult to prove all or the existence of a predicate crime on assets that produce assets. This paper aims to analyze ML in corruption cases in Indonesia.
Design/methodology/approach
This research uses qualitative descriptive methods. This research discusses the law enforcement of corruption which coincides with the crime of ML.
Findings
New findings were discovered where against the corruption case which was carried out concurrently with the crime of money laundering, the value of which was Rp. 1bn and above and has been handled by investigators from the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), so the prosecution process is carried out by the public prosecutor from the KPK to continue the trial to the Corruption Court. With respect to cases of criminal acts of corruption, which were carried out concurrently with ML crimes, the value of which was Rp. 1bn and below and had been handled by the prosecutor’s investigators from the start, the prosecution process was carried out by the public prosecutor from the prosecutor’s office to continue the trial to the corruption court.
Originality/value
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to use normative perspective on ML in corruption cases (white-collar crime). In contrast to previous studies that take fraud in general as an object of research, researchers are now interested in focusing more research on detecting suspected ML crimes: a case study on corruption cases in Indonesia.