ANALISIS PENERAPAN KETENTUAN DALAM PASAL 4 UNDANG-UNDANG PENCEGAHAN DAN PEMBERANTASAN TINDAK PIDANA PENCUCIAN UANG PERSPEKTIF ASAS KEPASTIAN HUKUM

There is a normative contradiction between the provisions of Article 4 and Article 69 of Law Number 8 of 2010 concerning the Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering Crimes (Anti-Money Laundering Law), particularly regarding the element of concealing or disguising the origin of assets derived from criminal activities. In practice, the evidentiary process in money laundering cases poses a specific challenge in achieving legal certainty.

This study uses a normative juridical research method, focusing on statutory regulations and legal doctrines.

The results of the study indicate that the application of the provisions in Articles 4 and 69 of the Anti-Money Laundering Law demonstrates that it is not always necessary to prove the predicate crime beforehand. The main focus in money laundering cases lies in proving suspicious financial transactions and efforts to conceal or disguise the origin of the funds, rather than directly identifying a specific predicate offense.

Article 4 of the law can be categorized as both an independent crime and a follow-up crime, depending on the context of its application. Meanwhile, Article 69 adopts the follow the money approach, whereby law enforcement is directed to trace suspicious fund flows without the obligation to first prove the underlying predicate crime.

Nevertheless, the predicate offense remains legally relevant, as it provides the substantive basis for the occurrence of money laundering. Its proof is optional and depends on the availability and sufficiency of evidence, but it is not an absolute requirement to proceed with a money laundering prosecution.