Explore publications.

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.

The purpose of this research is to find out how to resolve corruption on the basis of the value of state loss with an economic approach to the law. This research is normative juridical research with a statute approach, comparative approach, case approach and conceptual approach. This research shows research on the philosophy of eradicating corruption, restoring state losses, and high efficiency in order to realize economic growth and national development through an economic analysis approach to the application of its law. The results showed that the PTPK Law was made for economic stability, therefore, solving the problem of corruption cannot be separated from the consideration of the country's economy, and the costs that pose a relative risk to state expenditure affecting the country's economy. The juridical reality, the regulation of additional criminal charges, namely the penalty of paying as much as the amount of corrupt compensation as stated in Article 18 paragraph 1 letter (b) of the PTPK Law, if it is related to empirical facts about the imbalance between costs and the recovered economic value, is the reality is that the series of state expenses have increased.