The urgency of asset confiscation sanction in tax crimes

Rudi Margono, I Nyoman Nurjaya, Tunggul Anshari Setia Negara and Heru Hadi
Additional contact information
Rudi Margono: Faculty of Law, Brawijaya University, Malang City,Indonesia of Open and Distance Learning, Indonesia
I Nyoman Nurjaya: Faculty of Law, Brawijaya University, Malang City,Indonesia of Open and Distance Learning, Indonesia
Tunggul Anshari Setia Negara: Faculty of Law, Brawijaya University, Malang City,Indonesia of Open and Distance Learning, Indonesia
Heru Hadi: Faculty of Law, Brawijaya University, Malang City,Indonesia of Open and Distance Learning, Indonesia

International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), 2020, vol. 9, issue 5, 285-293

Abstract: Law Number 16 of 2009 concerning General Provisions and Tax Procedures (UU KUP), regulates administrative sanctions and criminal sanctions. The KUP Law method does not yet regulate how to save the loss of state revenue because it does not regulate the implementation of criminal fines, the legal implications of different decisions that cause legal uncertainty, injustice and have not provided benefits, especially in an effort to collect taxes. The purpose of this paper is to find out, analyze, and find the urgency of regulating criminal sanctions for the deprivation of assets in tax crime. This study is normative legal research with a legislation approach, historical approach, comparative law approach, conceptual approach, and case approach. The legal materials used are primary and secondary legal materials. Analysis of legal material is done with a descriptive perspective. The results of this study indicate that the inclusion of fine sanctions in the KUP Act turns out to lead to different interpretations resulting in legal uncertainty and does not provide economic benefits for the state in law enforcement, because the sanctions for fines are not complemented by implementing sanctions in the form of additional criminal sanctions in the form of confiscation of assets belonging to the defendant or an act (maatregel) in the form of requiring improvement of corporate governance in accordance with good corporate governance or placement of a legal company, where an economic crime is committed under a certain period of time, so that in the future the KUP Act, additional sanctions or actions to strengthen / complete in the future criminal sanctions for fines. Key Words: Sanctions, Asset Confiscation, Tax Crimes, State Losses

Date: 2020
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.ssbfnet.com/ojs/index.php/ijrbs/article/view/802/662 (application/pdf)
https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v9i5.802 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:rbs:ijbrss:v:9:y:2020:i:5:p:285-293

Access Statistics for this article

International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478) is currently edited by Prof.Dr.Umit Hacioglu

More articles in International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478) from Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance Editorial Office,Baris Mah. Enver Adakan Cd. No: 5/8, Beylikduzu, Istanbul, Turkey. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Umit Hacioglu ().