The urgency of asset confiscation sanction in tax crimes

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.

Keywords: {'name': 'Sanctions'}, {'name': 'Asset Confiscation'}, {'name': 'Tax Crimes'}, {'name': 'State Losses'}

Authors & affiliations

Rudi Margono
Affiliation not supplied

I Nyoman Nurjaya
Affiliation not supplied

Tunggul Anshari Setia Negara
Affiliation not supplied

Heru Hadi
Affiliation not supplied

Deposited references

Supplied references, not a list of publications citing this article.

Ali, M. (2017). Dasar-Dasar Hukum Pidana, Fourth Edition. Jakarta, Sinar Grafika.

Alika, R. & Thertina, M.R. (2019). Penerimaan Pajak 2018 Hanya Capai 92,4% dari Target, Kurang Rp 108,1 T. https://katadata.co.id/berita/2019/01/02/penerimaan-pajak-2018-hanya-capai-924-dari-target-kurang-rp-1081-t, accessed on 30 July 2019 20.12 WIB.

Ariyanti, F. (2015). 3 Penyebab Penerimaan Pajak RI Selalu di Bawah Target. https://www.liputan6.com/bisnis/read/2255380/3-penyebab-penerimaan-pajak-ri-selalu-di-bawah-target, accesed on 30 July 2019 20.12 WIB.

Asshidiggie, J. (2006). Konstitusi dan Konstitusionalisme Indonesia. Revision Edition. Jakarta, Secretariat General and Registrar of the Indonesian Constitutional Court.

Atmadja, I D.G. (2013). Filsafat Hukum, Dimensi Tematis & Historis. Malang, Setara Press.

DOI: 10.1108/JMLC-04-2014-0012

Garnasih, Y. (2010). Asset Recovery Act sebagai strategi dalam pengembalian aset hasil korupsi, dalam Perampasan Aset Hasil Tindak Pidana. Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, 7(4). Available at http://lib.ui.ac.id/file?file=digital/20237056-S550-Riani%20Atika%20Nanda%20Lubis.pdf

Harjanto, S.A. (2018). Penerimaan Perpajakan Hanya 91 Persen dari Target di 2017. CNN Indonesia Berita Makro, at https://www.cnnindonesia.com/ekonomi/20180102183322-532-266156/penerimaan-perpajakan-hanya-91-persen-dari-target-di-2017, accesed on 30 July 2019 20.12 WIB.

Hermansyah, N. (2009). Metodologi Penelitian dan Penulisan Hukum. Banjarmasin, STIH-SA Press.

DOI: 10.1108/IJLMA-03-2014-0027

Manan, B. (2007). Varia Keadilan. Jakarta, UI Press.

Marzuki,P.M. (2011). Penelitian Hukum, Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group.

Mustami, A.A. & Rafie, B.T. (2016). Penerimaan pajak 2015 hanya 81,5% dari target. Jakarta. kontan.co.id News Data Financial Tools. at https://nasional.kontan.co.id/news/penerimaan-pajak-2015-hanya-815-dari-target, accesed on 30 July 2019 20.12 WIB.

Nahak, S. (2013). Politik Hukum Pidana Dalam Pemidanaan Terhadap Pelaku Tindak Pidana Perpajakan Di Indonesia. Malang, University of Brawijaya.

Negara, T. A. S. (2017). Ilmu Hukum Pajak. Malang, Setara Press.

DOI: 10.14710/lr.v12i2.15875

Putra, A.A. (2018). Tindak Pidana korupsi di Bidang Perpajakan. Surabaya, University of Airlangga.

Rahardjo, S. (2006). Ilmu Hukum. Bandung, PT. Citra Aditya Bakri.

DOI: 10.1093/ojls/gqi041

Sari,D. (2016). Konsep Dasar Perpajakan. Bandung, PT Refika Aditama.

Saroh, M. (2017). Penerimaan Negara Sebesar 81,54 Persen dari Target APBN 2016. at https://tirto.id/penerimaan-negara-sebesar-8154-persen-dari-target-apbn-2016-cdHp, accesed on 30 July 2019 20.12 WIB.

Soeparman. (1993). Tindak Pidana Di Bidang Perpajakan (Analisis Hukum Ketentuan Pidana Dalam UU Nomor 8 Tahun 1983 Tentan Ketentuan Umum Dan TataCara Perpajakan). Jakarta, University of Indonesia.

Solihin, N. (2018). Harmonisasi Sanksi Perpajakan Indonesia Dengan KUH-Pidana Dalam Rangka Pengembangan Hukum Perpajakan Indonesia. Bandung, University of Padjajaran.

Sutedi, A. (2016). Hukum pajak. Third Printed. Jakarta, Sinar grafika.

Widijowati, D. (2018).Pengantar Ilmu Hukum. Yogyakarta, CV Andi Offset.

Wignyosoebroto, S. (2002). Metodologi Penelitian Hukum; Keragaman dalam konsep Tipe Kajian dan Metode Penelitiannya. Surabaya, University of Airlangga.