Construction of Law Enforcement Against Money Laundering Crime with Cyber Laundering Mode

• Author: Muhamad Rakhmat
• Position: Majalengka University, Faculty of Law, INDONESIA
• Pages: 1-21

Center for Open Access in Science  https://www.centerprode.com/ojls.html

Open Journal for Legal Studies, 2020, 3(1), 1-22.

ISSN (Online) 2620-0619  https://doi.org/10.32591/coas.ojls.0301.01001r

__________________________________________________ _______________________

© Authors. Terms and conditions of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) apply.

Correspondence: Dr. H. Muhamad Rakhmat., SH., MH, Majalengka University , Faculty of Law,

INDONESIA. E-mail: rakhmatmuhammad88@gmail.com.

Construction of Law Enforcement Against Money

Laundering Crime with Cyber Laundering Mode

Muhamad Rakhmat

Majalengka University, Faculty of Law, INDONESIA

Received: 5 January 2020  Accepted: 7 March 2020  Published O nline: 10 March 2020

Abstract

If it is understood that all economic crimes (financial crimes) will lead to money laundering, then

there should also be a lot of UUTPPU applications for economic crime cases. But in reality the

court’s decision on financial crimes related to UUTPPU is not up to 20 decisions, even though the

economic crimes that reached t he court were very large (especially those that are still in the

investigation stage, the number is far more), namely corruption, banking crime, illegal logging,

smuggling and others. Based on these data , it can be imagined how long a case must be settled

through a judicial process. Not infrequently a criminal case requires three to six years to get a

decision. The problem does not stop here, alt hough the decision has been obtained, it is li kely

that the parties who are dissatisfied with the dec ision will submit other legal remedies such as

appeal or reconsiderat ion. When added up, the total time needed for a decision to have

permanent legal force is fifteen to twenty years. Various technological advances were then

anticipated with the birth of Law No . 11 of 2008 concerning Information and Electronic

Transactions and subsequently written ITE Law. Information, Documents and Electronic

Signature Arrangements are set forth in Articles 5 through 12 of the ITE Law. In general, it is said

that Electronic Information, and/or Electronic Documents, and/or printouts, are valid legal

evidence, which is an extension of legal evidence in accordance with the applicable Procedure

Law in Indonesia. Likewise, Electronic Signatures have legal force and legal effect. However, the

making of an electronic signature must meet the specified requirements. The threat of using

information technology to encourage money laundering has been recognized by many. Professor

of Information Technology at the University of Paramadina, Marsudi W. Kisworo stressed that

currently the world is trying to fight money laundering through the Internet media, and even the

biggest crime on the Internet is money laundering with a percentage of more than 30% of

cybercrime.

Keywords: law enforcement, money laundering, cybercrime.

1. Introduction

The problem of money laundering has just been declared a criminal offense by Law

No. 15 of 2002 concerning Criminal Acts of Money Laundering (TPPU) which was passed and

enacted on 17 April 2002. With the TPPU Law, the legislators intend to criminalize

1 money

laundering crimes (Money Laundering) into an act prohibited by law criminal.

1 Criminalization is a rather new term in the science of law. Criminalization is part of criminal policy using

the means of punishment. The definition of criminalization based on the Indonesian dictionary is: “A

M. Rakhmat – Construction of Law Enforcement Against Money Launde ring Crime with…

__________________________________________________ _______________________

2

As a new law, of course it contains new problems for the Republic of Indonesia

(Indonesia). The issuance of Law No. 15 of 2002 this TPPU is to overcome the effects of Indonesia

being blacklisted, which is categorized as a non-cooperative Country, or a Non-Cooperative

Countries and Territories (NCCT’s) country since 2001 by the Developed Countries group

incorporated in the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) on Money Laundering.

2

Increasing money laundering crimes, the State of Indonesia, which is a hotbed for

money laundering, received enormous attention from governments, international organizations

and those who carry out transnational business practices. The organization that first paid attention

to money laundering was Task the Financial Action Force on Money Laundering (FATF). FATF

has the function of developing and disseminating policies to eradicate money laundering,

processing assets – assets from criminal acts in hiding their illegal origins.

One of the roles of the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) is to

determine the policies and steps needed in the form of recommended actions to prevent and

eradicate money laundering. In Indonesia's input into the NCCT’s based on the FATF decision due

to the existing TPPU Law considered too weak, the government made efforts to amend the law

with the birth of Law No. 25 of 2003 concerning Criminal Acts of Money Laundering, then

precisely on 12 February 2005, Indonesia officially left the NCCT’s list.

Why did the Republic of Indonesia twice make the TPPU Law?, the argument made by

the makers of the TPPU Law was in the framework of preventing and eradicating TPPU, Indonesia

already had Law No. 15 of 2002 concerning TPPU. However, it is felt that the provisions in the Act

do not meet international standards and the development of judicial processes of money

laundering, so it needs to be changed so that efforts to prevent and eradicate TPPU can run

effectively.3

There is a reason why Indonesia immediately has an anti-money laundering law, even

in a very fast time Indonesia changed it TTPU Law, and the most logical reason is because the

practice of money laundering is very detrimental to society, why it harms the community. In this

case Sutan Remy Sjahdeini,4 said that:

1. Money laundering allows criminals or criminal organizations to expand their

operations, this will increase the cost of law enforcement to eradicate it;

2. Money laundering activities have the potential to undermine the public to

continue to commit these crimes;

3. As a result of money laundering, it is likely that corruption will increase along

with the circulation of large amounts of illicit money;

process that shows the behavior was not initially considered a criminal event, but later classified as a

criminal event by the community”. According to Sudarto, what is meant by cr iminalization is as: “The

process of determining an act of a person as an act that can be convicted, this process ends with the

formation of a law where the act is threatened with a criminal sanction.” Look in: Sudarto, Hukum Dan

Hukum Pidana. PT. Alumni: Bandung, 1986: 31-32.

2 Adrian Sutedi, Tindak Pidana Pencucian Uang, PT. Citra Aditya Bakti: Bandun g, 2008: 175-176.

3 Compare with Considerin g Law No. 25/2003 concer ning Amendment to Law No. 15/2002 co ncerning

TPPU, which states that in order to prevent and eradicate the TPPU effectively, the Law No. 15 of 2002

concerning TPPU needs to be adjusted to the development of criminal law regarding money laundering and

international standards. So it is clear t hat Indonesia in changing Law No. 15 of 2002, only follo wing the

development of the international world, although during Law No. 15 of 2002 is valid until it is replaced, the

case of Money Laundering has never been revealed by law enforcement officials in Indonesia.

4 Sutan Remy Sjahdeini, Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Pencuciang Uang (Makalah), Disampaikan pada

Sosialisasi RUU-TPU, yang diselenggarankan leh Depkim dan HAM dari Tan ggal 6-10 November 2000: 1.