A comparative study on non-judicial settlement on corruption and corruption asset recovery: A lesson learned for Indonesia

This article is written to seek and understand the effective means that Indonesia can apply to fulfill its obligation to recover the asset deprived of a corruption criminal act under the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. The obligation therein is set in Article 51 of the convention in conjunction with Article 37 of the convention. In seeking such effective means, this article is written by applying the normative method of research. This research is also complemented by applying the comparative approach by understanding the regulations applicable in France, Netherlands, Canada, and Malaysia which provides authorities for their attorney general to settle their corruption crime issue outside the court. By conducting comparative studies on France and Holland, it can be understood that both countries are applying measures permittingtheir prosecutors to adopt an agreement with the offender, which obliges the offender to pay a sum of money to recover the deprived state assets due to his offense. Meanwhile, by applying the same method to Canada and Malaysia, one may construe that both countries provide a precise legal weight to their prosecutor to determine whether such offense shall be settled through the court or not. This article ended with a reflection expressing that Indonesia shall apply a similar mechanism applicable in those countries to settle a corrupt criminal act causing a small amount of economic or financial losses to the country.