Penyitaan dalam Rangka Pengembalian Kerugian Keuangan Negara pada Proses Penyidikan di Kejaksaan Negeri Toba Samosir (Studi Kasus: Putusan Pengadilan Tipikor pada Pengadilan Negeri Medan No. 33/Pid.Sus-TPK/2022/PN.Mdn)

Abstract

Seizure in the context of recovering state financial losses needs to be examined with considerations of certainty in the enforcement of anti-corruption laws. In this regard, this research is aimed at conducting an in-depth study of the regulation of seizure related to the recovery of state financial losses in corruption cases at the investigation level, the implementation of seizure in the Toba Samosir District Prosecutor's Office, and the factors influencing seizure in the context of recovering state financial losses in corruption cases at the Toba Samosir District Prosecutor's Office. This research employs a normative legal research method that is descriptive and qualitative in nature, utilizing secondary data in the form of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. Data is collected through literature review and document study techniques, and analyzed using qualitative data analysis methods. The research findings conclude that the regulation of seizure in the context of recovering state financial losses in corruption cases at the investigation level contains legal uncertainty due to the absence of provisions regarding voluntary return of state losses by the suspects to the Investigating Prosecutor. The implementation of seizure in the investigation process for the recovery of state financial losses in corruption cases at the Tobasa District Prosecutor's Office is not fully in line with the procedures outlined in the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), as evidenced by the fact that the Investigating Prosecutor only creates a Seizure Report (BA-16) for the custody of evidence. Several factors influencing the seizure in the context of recovering state financial losses in corruption cases at the investigation level in the Tobasa District Prosecutor's Office were identified, namely: legal substance factors, law enforcement factors, infrastructure factors, societal factors, and legal culture factors.