The Conflict Of Asset Seizure Authority Over Proceeds Of Tax Crimes Between The Anti-Money Laundering Law And The General Provisions And Tax Procedures Law

Abstract

Tax crimes in Indonesia increasingly involve asset concealment through money laundering, making proceeds hard to trace once they change hands. Article 44 paragraph (2) letter j of the General Provisions and Tax Procedures Law (KUP Law), from the 2021 Tax Regulation Harmonization Law, empowers tax directorate investigators (PPNS DJP) to seize a suspect's assets to recover state losses, yet this authority stalls once assets are laundered or re-registered under another name. Unlike earlier studies examining the two laws separately, this article investigates the conflict of seizure authority between the KUP Law and the Anti-Money Laundering Law and its complementary role. Using normative legal research with statutory and conceptual approaches, informed by conflict of norms and asset recovery theory, the study finds the seizure powers apply cumulatively given their different legal regimes and ceasing a tax investigation under Article 44B does not automatically end a parallel money-laundering investigation, though the absence of a connecting norm allows procedural conflict. PPNS DJP has combined both regimes to reach wider assets, but this risks shifting the burden of proof onto the suspect and creating legal uncertainty touching the ne bis in idem principle. The study proposes a connecting norm between the two case files.