The urgency of asset confiscation sanction in tax crimes

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. Key Words: Sanctions, Asset Confiscation, Tax Crimes, State Losses