Search

For almost twenty-five years, pure economic loss claims have been the focus of intensive tort law debate, with varying views on whether the court should grant or reject them. There is only financial or economic loss when a third party suffers pure economic harm as a result of carelessness. This article will provide fascinating instances of Indonesia's utter financial devastation.. This essay will also address a number of disagreements regarding the concept and relevance of pure economic loss. The foresee ability principle, absolute vs. relative rights, the floodgates, the floodgates in conjecture, and geography are frequently the topics of these disagreements. On the other hand, those who agree to pure economic loss claim that their loss will be lawfully limited or reimbursed within the scope of contract law. After that, a legal scholar's perspective on pure economic loss will be presented, along with an approach to law and economics. In conclusion, Indonesian legal experts—especially lawmakers and judges—need to recognize the possibility of pure economic loss and determine the limits of what the legal system in the nation will accept as pure economic loss. This comparative normative legal study compares the recovery of state losses caused by corruption in Saudi Arabia and Indonesia. This study provides confirmation for that.The current legal framework in Indonesia for the gathering and seizure of assets connected to corruption has to be revised in order to recover monetary losses to the state. Secondly, there is a need to reinforce the existing mechanisms in place to combat corruption in law enforcement, specifically the procedure for recouping state losses. Indonesia's corrupt asset recovery system is less successful than Saudi Arabia's, where corruptors may lose up to 70% of their money that is taken by the government. Third, while confiscating corrupt assets in Indonesia, the notion of unexplained riches must be used. This method permits the seizure of property owned by individuals whose worth greatly above their known income and who are unable to demonstrate through reverse engineering that they obtained the property lawfully.

Article 64 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Law no. 1 of 2004 concerning the State Treasury, states firmly that the Treasurer and other officials who have been appointed to compensate the state/regional losses in settlements with the dimensions of State Administrative Law may still be subject to administrative sanctions and/or criminal sanctions. And if the treasurer and other officials are processed under criminal law, the criminal decision does not relieve the claim for compensation that has been determined through a settlement with the dimensions of State Administrative Law. The regulation of such norms certainly raises legal issues, namely the implications for the Treasurer and Other Officials who have been determined by the Regional Compensation Claim. In the author's view, the treasurer and other officials when this article is applied will create double sanctions, sanctions for compensation claims (internal settlement), administrative sanctions and criminal sanctions.

Article 64 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Law Number 1 of 2004 concerning the State Treasury states firmly that the treasurer and other officials who have been appointed to compensate the state/regional losses in settlements with the dimensions of State Administrative Law may still be subject to administrative sanctions and/or criminal sanctions. And suppose the treasurer and other officials are processed under criminal law. In that case, the criminal decision does not relieve the claim for compensation that has been determined through a settlement with the dimensions of State Administrative Law. The regulation of such norms certainly raises legal issues, which have implications for the Treasurer and Other Officials whose demands for regional compensation have been determined, namely creating double sanctions, both sanctions for compensation claims (internal settlement), administrative sanctions (dismissed with respect) and criminal sanctions (jail, fines, and compensation). To overcome these legal problems, an alternative model for regulating regional compensation claims is needed in Article 64 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Law Number 1 of 2004 against the Treasurer and Other Officials with justice and legal certainty in the future (ius constituendum).

Certain circumstances as the reason for the aggravation of corruption should not only be limited to the reasons as contained in Article 2 paragraph 2 of Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning Amendments to Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption, but there is an essential reason by adopting the values of Islamic criminal law. These values are divided into two major groups, namely: First are universal values whose philosophical basis is "maqosyid al-syar'iyah", by relying on the protection of five points in Islamic criminal law (kulliyah al-homsah) which includes religion (al-din), soul (al-nafs), reason (al-aql), offspring (al-nasab), and property (al-mal), which in the context of a criminal act of corruption is "hifzdu al-mal" namely the protection of State assets, which in this case, if it is associated with the weighting of the crime of corruption, means that the weighting of the crime is based on how much the state has lost as a result of corruption. The second is fundamental values whose philosophical basis is "rohmatal lil alamin, which contains the value of al-adaalah, namely the values of justice that can be concretized against the weighting of corruption based on the quality of legal subjects; for example the perpetrator is a high-ranking state official; the value of al-tawkidiyah, which is the value of certainty, based on the existence of "nishab," which can be concretized against the weighting of corruption crimes based on the minimum limit of state financial losses, for example, the weighting of corruption can be imposed if the state financial losses are not less than one hundred billion rupiah; and the last is the value of al-maslahah, which is based on taking benefits and rejecting mafsadat or damage, which in the context of aggravating corruption means that it is based on the consequences of corruption in the form of systemic damage.