By Timur Abimanyu, SH.

MH

The Washington Post

PROOF REVERSED ON THE FOLLOW CRIME OF CORRUPTION
PERSPECTIVE AND MONEY LAUNDERING AND BACKWARD WITH PROOF
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PRESUMTION OF NOT GUILTY
Evidence of corruption cases in Indonesia and several foreign countries are perceived very
complicated. Especially for Indonesia, the subtleties are in addition to the process of
enforcement is also due to legislative policy-making Act whose products still can be
multiple interpretations, so that relatively many found several weaknesses in it. One
example: to put forward here is Act No. 31 of 1999 jo UU No. 20 Year 2001 on Eradication
of Corruption. The provisions of the Act mentioned corruption is a crime of extraordinary
(extra-ordinary crime) so that necessary action is also exceptional (extra-ordinary measures.)
Justify the statement in its implementation?

Apparently, not all true. For example, specific to the crime of bribery (bribery) is not an
extraordinary crime but of a common crime (ordinary crime) so it is not required
extraordinary remedies. In addition to the above aspects, not to mention public opinion and
experts who want the evidentiary burden of proving cases of corruption used inverted
(Omkering van het Bewijslat or Reversal Burden of Proof / Onus of Proof) that assumes the
reverse case of proof of corruption can be eradicated. Perhaps the statement is true but many
polemics and to invite debate as some aspects. First, the study of the history of corruption
and corruption legislation in Indonesia since the rulers of this present war was central to
many cases of corruption can not be "eradicated" and even the relative increase in intensity
based on a survey of corruption monitoring institutions in the world. In addition, some
institutions have been established to monitor korupsipun but the acts of corruption also
remain and even add bloom occurs. Second, there is no theoretical justification that can be
used as benchmarks to combat corruption by using a reverse burden of proof so that the
legislative policy to eradicate corruption in Indonesia has yet to act optimally.

Dilemma of the burden of proof reversed

There is a crucial dilemma in Indonesian legislation concerning the burden of proof is
reversed. At the provisions of Article 12B and Article 37, Section 38b of Act No. 31 of 1999
jo Act No. 20 of 2001 set about the burden of proof is reversed. Really so studied the
theoretical aspects and practice? According to the authors, not. Strictly speaking there are
mistakes and unclear formulation of norms regarding the burden of proof upside down in the
provisions of Article 12B of Law 31/1999 Law 20/2001 yo. The provisions of Article 12 B
(1) reads: "Any gratuities to public servants or state officials if deemed bribery related to his
position and that contrary to obligations or duties, with the following conditions: (a) the
value of Rp. 10.000.000,00 (ten million rupiah) or more, proving that the gratuity was not a
bribe made by a recipient of gratification, (b) whose value is less than Rp. 10.000.000,00
(ten million rupiah), proving that the bribery graft performed by the public prosecutor. "

There are some fundamental errors of policy legislation above. First, the study of the
formulation of criminal acts (materiele feit) provision which creates a norm of error and
uncertainty principle of burden of proof is reversed. On the one hand, the principle of
reversed burden of proof to be applied to the graft recipient pursuant to Article 12B
paragraph (1) letter a, which reads, ".. the value of Rp. 10.000.000,00 (ten million rupiah) or
more, proving that the gratuity was not a bribe made by a recipient of gratification ", but on
the other side can not be applied to the recipient gratification because of the provisions of
the article stating clearly editorial," each of the gratification to civil servants or state officials
if deemed bribery related to his position and that contrary to obligations or duties ", then the
formulation of all core elements of the offense listed is complete and clear in an article
carrying the juridical implications of the requirement and duties of Public Prosecutor to
prove the formulation offense in the article in question.

Strictly speaking, the principle of reversed burden of proof is on the level of the provisions
of the Act and no policy of its application due to the policy in legislation offense stacking
fault, since all the core section is called so that the remaining offenses to be proved
otherwise not even exist. Second, there are errors and mistakes the formulation of norms of
the provisions of Article 12B of Act No. 20 of 2001 along the editorial ".. considered
bribery." If a gratuity that has been accepted by civil servants or state officials gratuities are
not categorized ".. considered bribery" but has included actions "bribery". The existence of
the principle of reversed burden of proof according to the norms of criminal law is not
aimed at the gratification with the editorial ".. considered bribes" but should the two core
elements of the formulation as part of statement offenses related to his position (in zijn
bediening) and who perform work that contradicts with the obligation (in stijd met zijn
plicht). Third, reviewed from the perspective of specific provisions of the criminal justice
system associated with the UN Convention Against Corruption 2003 (KAK 2003) which
Indonesia ratified by Law No. 7 of 2006.

Essentially, this dimension of reversed burden of proof is prohibited against persons because
of potential errors would violate Human Rights (HAM), contrary to the presumption of
innocence (presumption of innocence) that cause a shift in the evidentiary presumption of
innocence (presumption of guilt) or principle presumption of corruption (presumption of
corruption). Also intersecting with the provisions of penal procedure which requires the
burden of proving the defendant is not charged as the provisions of Article 66 Criminal
Procedure Code, Article 66 paragraph (1), (2) and Article 67 paragraph (1) item (i) Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court (International Criminal Court / ICC), Article 11
paragraph (1) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 40 paragraph (2b), item (i)
the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Principle 36 paragraph (1) set the principles for
the protection of all persons in the form any detention or imprisonment, the UN General
Assembly Resolution 43/1739 in December 1988 and the International Convention and the
principle of legality. From what has been described above, the actual burden of proof
reversed the laws of Indonesia "no" policy legislation but "no" and "can not" carried out in
the policy application.

Justification reversed burden of proof

In the context of the above benchmarks reversed burden of proof can not be applied
3terhadap corruption errors that use the system or the principle of negative proof "beyond a
reasonable doubt." Dimensional logical consequence thus reverse the burden of proof is not
going to interfere with human rights, criminal law provisions, especially concerning the
presumption of innocence, the principle is not self-blame (non-self-incrimination), the
principle of the right to silence (Right to Remain Silent), criminal law material as well as
international legal instruments. Then on the other hand, reversed the burden of proof can be
done against the corruption of wealth so that the emphasis on the return of state property that
was corrupted by the perpetrators of corruption. Strictly speaking, the dimensions of the
context of the above against the perpetrators of error alleged to have committed corruption
still use the track criminal (criminal procedure) with negative or proof beyond a reasonable
doubt about returning the property while the perpetrator of corruption can be used upside
down by the burden of proof because it is relatively non-dimensional tangent aspects of
human rights, not violate the law of criminal procedure, substantive criminal law and
international legal instruments.

With such dimensions, an alternative proof of corruption are used relatively adequate
Reversed Burden of Proof Theory Possible Balance (Balanced Probability of Principles) of
Oliver Stolpe. Basically, this theory mengkedepankan proportionately balance between
protection of individual liberty on the one hand, and deprivation of rights of individuals
concerned over the ownership of wealth which allegedly came from corruption on the other.
Concretely, put the perpetrators of corruption against the act or fault may not be used but the
principle of reversed burden of proof remains on the basis of the principle of "beyond a
reasonable doubt" because of the protection of the rights of individuals are placed highest on
the deprivation of personal freedom.

In this context, the position of human rights perpetrators of corruption are placed in position
(level) the highest using the theory of "balanced a very high probability" (Highest Balanced
Probability Principles) which still use the system according to the Law of Evidence By
Negative or based on the principle of "beyond reasonable doubt. " Then simultaneously on
one particular side of the reversed burden of proof can be done against the perpetrators of
corruption used wealth Theory "Balanced Probability derived" (Lower Probability of
Principles). In practice, the application of this theory in the criminal acts of corruption have
been made by the High Court of Hong Kong in the case between the Attorney General Of
Hong Kong v Lee Kwang Kut and the case between the Attorney General of Hong Kong v
Hui Kin Hong and the Supreme Court India.Namun Thus, the prohibition of reverse
evidentiary mechanism is only valid and applicable in the prosecution of criminal cases
(including corruption) , but does not apply in civil evidentiary mechanism or mechanisms of
"non-criminal proceedings." In this regard there is no ban on the use of authentication
mechanisms reversed in the case of assets derived from criminal acts of corruption (assets
from corruption). The use of the mechanism of proof reversed in the case of property
ownership a person who allegedly came from the corruption or money laundering intended
to put someone in its original state before the party concerned has meant wealth, for which
the visitor must be able to prove the origin of the assets acquired. Now, it's up to the
legislative policy to select it. Dr. Lili MULYADI, SH, M.H.

While Proof Reversed Applied to Money Laundering Case, is based and originated at the
start diberlakukaknnya Act No. 25 of 2003 on Money Laundering, the revision of Law No.
15 of 2002. There was a legal product because of international pressure on Indonesia, among
others, from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), international agencies outside of the
United Nations (UN). Its members consist of donor countries and function as a task force in
combating laundering uang.Sebelumnya Indonesia in 2001 along with 17 other countries
threatened international sanctions. On October 23, 2003, the FATF, in Stockholm, Sweden,
declared Indonesia as a country that was not cooperative in combating money laundering.
Country Cook Islands, Egypt, Guatemala, Myanmar, Nauru, Nigeria, Philippines and
Ukraine into the same category.

A few years before that, precisely 1997, Indonesia has ratified the United Nations
Convention Against Illucit Traffic in Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Narcitic 1998
(Convention 1998). The consequences of such ratification, Indonesia should immediately
make rules for its implementation. In fact although there are Law No. 15 of 2002, but
pengetrapannya less, and eventually entered the black list of uncooperative countries.
Even Indonesia is suspected as a haven for money laundering. Among others, since
embracing free foreign exchange system, strict bank secrecy, corruption is rampant, rampant
crime narcotics, and extra again at that time the Indonesian economy in a state that is not
good, so there is a tendency to accept funds from any recovery for the economy.
The existence of Indonesia is in the list of Non Cooperative Countries and Territories
(NCCT's) in accordance with the recommendations of the Financial Actions Task Force on
Money Laundering. That transactions with individuals and institutions that derived from
state law NCCT's to be done with thorough research. Various efforts over several years,
between Iain to make the Law on Money Laundering, established the Center for Financial
Transaction Reports and Analysis Center (INTRAC), issued a regulation implementing and
conducting international cooperation, finally bearing fruit. February 2006 Indonesia's
removed from the NCCT list after done, a formal monitoring for one year.

Co-Chair, with the release of Indonesia from the black list because of the success case
reveals bobolnya National Bank Indonesia (BNI) amounting to Rp1, 7 trillion. BNI fund
Bobolnya begins when in September 2002, BNI agreed to disburse funds to PT.Gramarindo
and PT. Perindo to facilitate the export business of plantation, liquid fertilizer and industuri
marble under L / C issue four foreign bank that is open all Bank korespenden BNI.Empat
Dubbai Bank Bank of Kenya Ltd., Rosbank Swizterland, Midle East Kenya Ltd, The
Wallstreet Banking corp. After some banks are mediators American Bank and Standard
Chartered Bank, then in October 2002 to July 2003, funds amounting to Rp1, 7 trillion
tersebut.Ternyata all problematic. L / C was false, funding terkucur of BNI was not for
export business, but distributed at a number of companies and partly to repay debt and for
projects that are not in accordance with the loan application. In short all filled with
deception and fraud that ultimately L / C that can be said fictitious.

With the release of Indonesia from the NCCT's, at the annual meeting of the 9th Asia Pacific
Group on Money Laundering (APG-ML) which took place in Manila 3 to 7 July 2006,
Indonesia has been elected as co-chair (co-chairs) with Australia to lead the organization
The period 2006 - 2008.Indonesia represented by INTRAC as vocal point in the prevention
and combating money laundering in Indonesia. Australia was represented Commissioner
Mick Keely, Australian police chief.

Negative Influence
The definition of money laundering is generally defined as the process being undertaken to
convert the proceeds of crime such as corruption, narcotics, gambling, etc. looks like the
result of legitimate activity, since its origin has been disguised or hidden.
Viewed from the concept of money laundering was actually already there on 17 when the
French nobleman brought wealth to Switzerland. Likewise, property that was brought Jews
from Germany to Switzerland in the other Hittler.Hal promote money laundering in
Indonesia is the weak rule of law and lack of professionalism of law enforcement, the
impact of globalization and technological advances with the Internet that allows cross-
border organized crime money laundering must be eradicated because it has a negative
impact and dangers that could harm national interests and even international.
Proof Reversed
The development of the understanding that prevent the perpetrators of criminal acts, change
funds of illicit proceeds of crime into lawful and confiscate proceeds of crime is an effective
way to combat the crime itself. This is because the property is proceeds of crime other than
blood that supports the crime itself, also represents the weakest link of the whole process of
follow-up activities pidana.Dalam reverse evidentiary burden of proof is on the defendant.
In the crime of money laundering which must be proved is the origin of property is not
derived from criminal acts, for example, not from corruption, crime and the act of illicit
lainnya. Narkotikan inverted is not to prove a criminal act committed by the defendant, but
the goal is to confiscate property derived from criminal acts so it was not to punish the
perpetrators of crime.
In Article 35 of Law No. 25 of 2003 set about proving upside down with the formulation
that "For the purposes of examination before the court, the defendant must prove that their
wealth is not the proceeds of crime".
In this provision is not clear is whether the evidence in the criminal context to punish the
person concerned or to seize property that bersangkutan.Hukum events that regulate this
reverse proof was not there, thus causing difficulties in its implementation, as happened in
the trial Adrian Herling Woworuntu at the South Jakarta District Court charged with charges
of corruption or laundering of proof reversed uang.Jika done to punish the defendant, is
clearly contrary to some principles of criminal law in Indonesia, namely the principle of
presumption of innocence (presumption of innocence) and non-self-incrimination.
Presumption of innocence has long been known in law in Indonesia, which is now regulated
by Article 8 of Law No. 4 of 2004 on Judicial Power and Article 18 of Law No. 39 Year
1999 on Human Rights.
This principle essentially states that every person arrested, detained and prosecuted for
alleged criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty in a court
lawfully. Meanwhile, the principle of non-self-incrimination found in practice and in the
written rules in Indonesia such as in the Act, concerning Rights Manusia.Asas non-self
incrimination in the common law system - law known as the privilege against self-
incrimination, that person can not be prosecuted a criminal on the basis of information given
or the documents showed. As a consequence of the suspect or defendant to be quiet and not
answer the questions posed to him. This principle worked well in countries that follow
common law legal system, but in Indonesia if the defendant does not answer the question
posed, then it is considered difficult to aggravate the course of legal proceedings until later.
Hence there is a tendency that the defendant will answer questions posed to him, until in the
end did not hurt himself.

To pursue the money laundering of assets needs to be introduced rules governing the
confiscation of assets in a civil and a criminal by law a special or extraordinary event in the
revised plan of Money Laundering Act submitted PPATK head, Dr. Yusuf Hussein, for
example by giving the burden of proof on the wealth derived from money laundering to the
defendant. Legal extraordinary events (extraordinary) is necessary, because crime is also
facing outside biasa.Pembuktian upside down is not to give corporal punishment to the
perpetrators of crime. If done in a civil settlement, this settlement must be done separately
from the criminal settlement. This is a new problem, so it takes not only the new law, but
also the mindset of thinking that is also new, not as in the present law there are rules, but
does not clear its application, to raise questions of proof reversed Quo Vadis laundering
money? (11) By Mulyanto, Suara Merdeka, October 12, 2006

The principle of Proof Reversed vs. Presumption of Innocence

Permberitaan about tax evasion by Gaius Tambunan, again triggering the legal discourse to
address the rampant cases of corruption and embezzlement among State officials. As the
legal character (character of law) are constantly changing and moving forward (law in the
making), then re mencuatlah one legal settlement method which we call the "principle of
proof upside down" (omkering van de bewijslast). This is one form of case management
efforts to offer solutions to embezzlement, corruption and money laundering act Criminal
(money laundry), especially among our bureaucratic officials.

Answering Principle Contradiction

The principle of proof be reversed was sticking out and a long debate in the government era
Gus Dur. At that time, Gus Dur was filed draft of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law
(Regulation) on the reverse of proof, in the treatment and eradication of corruption. But
various groups are pessimistic, due to the assumption that the principle of proof reversed
violate fundamental rights of someone who is fortified by the presumption of innocence
(presumption of innocence). Despite open welcomed by many parties, but this Regulation
finally canceled. A similar effort ever undertaken by the KPK. To accelerate the eradication
of corruption, the Commission proposed using the principle of proof reversed in the year
2004. However, until recently the proposal did not go unrealized. Many factors which then
become barriers to enter a verification mechanism upside down in our legal system, among
others:
First, that the reverse burden of proof obligation, it is not known in our legal system. Gap to
use the principle of proof upside down, has been locked tightly in the Book of Criminal Law
(Penal Code) us. In Article 66 KHUP affirmed that, the suspect or the accused does not bear
the burden of proving ". Thus, someone who has been alleged to have committed a criminal
act, shall have no obligation to do bebab of proof is reversed. Second, The use of the
principle of proof upside down, violating the fundamental rights of a person. Especially if it
is associated with the principle of presumption of innocence or presumption of innocence. In
the international covenants, it has also been stated in the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR), which has been ratified through Law No. 12 of 2005. In a sense,
the ICCPR is fully guarantee the right to not guilty until proven by law (non self-
incrimination). Article 14 Paragraph (3) letter g of the ICCPR states that, "In determining
the charges of criminal offenses against him, everyone is entitled not to be compelled to
testify against oneself or confess guilt". Third, the existence of legal problems, ie, although
the gap to enforce the principle of proof reversed, there are a number of clauses in our
legislation, but it is universally accepted legal principle "lex superior derogat legi inferiori"
or rule of law that a lower level, should be subject to the rule of law higher. Or in other
words, the regulation must not violate the provisions of which are on top. In Act No. 10 of
2004 on the Establishment of Laws and Regulations, Article 7, paragraph (1), states that,
type and hierarchy of legislation consists of: 45 Constitution, Law / Regulation, regulation,
regulation and local regulation. Thus, the rules in any Bentu to accommodate the principle
of proof reversed, would violate provisions of the Constitution in question because the base
45 as the highest law in the administration of our State.
Seeking Justice Gap
Although the principle of proof reversed, considered contradictory with our law books, but
there are some legal aspects that should be taken into consideration in the eradication of
fraud, corruption and money laundering. The principle of proof reversed, although not
completely, but the space is adequate permberlakuan principle clearly stated in Law No. 31
of 1999 jo. Law Number 20 Year 2001 on Eradication of Corruption. Not in full here, meant
that, even though a person has failed to prove the origin of their wealth that is suspect from
the proceeds of crime, the prosecutor as the public prosecutor still has the obligation to
prove the charges processed in the courts.

In Act No. 20 of 2001, Article 37 paragraph (1), ddikatakan that, "the defendant has the right
to prove that he did not engage in corrupt activities." In the event that the defendant can
prove that he is not committing a criminal act of corruption, then the proof is used by the
court as a basis for stating that the charges were not proven. In Article 37A Paragraph (1)
and (2), further strengthens the position of the burden of proof is reversed, by asserting that,
"The defendant must provide information on all of their possessions and property of the wife
or husband, children, and property of any person or corporation who suspected to have links
with the case being prosecuted. " In the event that the defendant can not prove about the
wealth that is not balanced with additional sources of income or wealth, then the information
referred to in paragraph (1) is used to strengthen existing evidence that the defendant had
committed the crime of corruption.

Despite having room in imposing the burden of proof reversed, but the provisions as
stipulated in Law No. 20 of 2001 on Eradication of Corruption, the other provisions remains
restricted in it. Reversed burden of proof could be said half-heartedly, with a fixed charge of
proof to prosecutors pentuntu, even though the defendant failed to prove the origin of his
wealth. It is stated in Article 37A Paragraph (3), which states that, "The provisions referred
to in paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) a crime or subject matter referred to in Article 2,
Section 3, Article 4, Article 13, Article 14, Article 15 and Article 16 of Law No. 31 of 1999
on the Crime of Corruption and Article 5 to Article 12 of this Act, so that the public
prosecutor remains obligated to membuktikann indictment. "

In addition to these provisions, in the Law No. 28 of 1999 concerning the implementation of
a clean state and free from corruption, collusion and nepotism, clearly also has provided the
mandate for state officials to explain the origins of his wealth when questioned by the
Commission Operator Examination Wealth State (KPKPN). In addition, in article 17
paragraph (2) letter e, stated that, "If deemed necessary, in addition to asking for proof of
ownership in part or whole State Organizers property allegedly obtained from corruption,
collusion and nepotism during his tenure as State Organizer, also asked authorized officer to
prove the allegation in accordance with the provisions of the legislation in force ".

Reverse Proof Operator For State Officials

If the burden of proof reversed, accommodated in a number of laws and regulations, but still
considered to be contrary to human rights aspects, especially regarding the presumption of
innocence (presumption of innocence), then can apply the reverse burden of proof in our
legal system?. The answer to this question, of course referring to the context and situation. If
the reversed burden of proof imposed on the alleged misuse of state money (fraud,
corruption, money laundering), then there is no reason to reject the imposition of the burden
of proof is reversed. This can be confirmed in Many diagnostic reasons, among others:
First, that the official organizer of the State has the obligation and responsibility to prove
their wealth both before, while and after taking office. It is set in the provisions of Act No.
28 of 2009 on State Implementation of Clean And Free From Corruption, Collusion and
Nepotism, article 5, paragraph (3), which states that "each State is obliged to report the
organizers and announced the wealth before and after serving. " Thus, the reversed burden
of proof may be applied as prevention of corruption and abuse of money that other State.
Please note that this reverse burden of proof required for a person attached to her obligations
as an official organizer of the State, not him as personal.

Second, if we interpret the act of abuse of state money, as an extraordinary crime (extra-
ordinary crime), then the reverse should also the principle of proof imposed as a great way
too, although contrary to the principles of presumption of innocence. Legal logic (logic of
law), is an important principle to strengthen this position. Where we can learn from efforts
to combat corruption by establishing a State commission (read: KPK), with some authority
that is outside kaedah-kaedah law in general. For example, the prosecution authority, which
previously only borne by the prosecutor, but by Act No. 30 of 2020 on Corruption
Eradication Commission, the Commission is given authority to inquiry, investigation and
prosecution, as an extraordinary legal effort to shut us kelemahan.lembaga prosecutor that
tends to infertility in resolve corruption cases (Article 6 letter c). Thus, efforts to reverse
imposition of the burden of proof, we must also interpret as an extraordinary legal effort in
building the State administration system that is free from collusion, corruption and
nepotism.

Third, philosophy and the nature of law is that it exists not for itself, but the laws are there to
provide comfort and justice to mankind. The issue of corruption, embezzlement and money
laundering committed by the organizers of the State of State, an act of evil that has invaded
the public sense of justice. For that, rule of law which are quois status, need to be reviewed
by not only pegged to the rules of the text alone. If the system of rule of law has been to
obstruct the process of finding justice communities, it is our obligation to find a solution by
enforcing the principle of proof reversed as a form of keberhipakan law in our country.
Progression of law should we view as a process of development and construction of laws
which are not merely as a form of implementation of the rules, but as the embodiment of the
basic essence of human law as a means to gain happiness and justice in their entirety. By
Herdian Hamza.

==============

Illustration By Timur Abimanyu, SH.MH.

Corruption is a crime of extraordinary (extra-ordinary crime) so that necessary action is

extraordinary too (extra-ordinary measures.) However, in implementation?
For example, the crime of bribery (bribery) is not an extraordinary crime but of a common
crime (ordinary crime) so that is not required extraordinary remedies. There is public
opinion and experts who want the evidentiary burden of proof of corruption cases used
inverted (Omkering van het Bewijslat or Reversal Burden of Proof / Onus of Proof) by
assuming that proof reversed in the case of corruption can be eradicated. Judging from the
history of corruption and corruption legislation in Indonesia, there is no theoretical
justification that can be used as benchmarks to combat corruption.

The dilemma is very crucial in Indonesian legislation concerning the burden of proof is
reversed as found in the provisions of Article 12B and Article 37, Section 38b of Act No. 31
of 1999 jo Act No. 20 of 2001. Similarly, regarding gratuities to public servants or state
officials if deemed bribery related to his position and that contrary to the obligation or duty,
that gratuities in the form of bribes made by public prosecutor. "
There is a very fundamental mistake of the policy formulation of legislation that is of
criminal acts (materiele feit) such provision raises an error and obscurity norms and the
principle of reverse burden of proof on the one hand, the principle of reversed burden of
proof will apply to the recipient of gratification, because the gratification is not a bribery
made by the recipient of gratification ", but on the other side may not apply to recipients of
gratification because of the provisions of the article stating clearly redactional, then the
formulation of all core elements of the offense listed is complete and clear in an article
carrying the juridical implications of the requirement and obligation Public Prosecution to
prove the offense in the formulation of the relevant article.

The existence of the principle of reversed burden of proof according to the norms of
criminal law is not aimed at the gratification with the editorial ".. considered bribes" but
should the two core elements of the formulation as part of statement offenses related to his
position (in zijn bediening) and who perform work that contradicts with the obligation (in
stijd met zijn plicht) and connected with the UN Convention Against Corruption 2003,
which Indonesia ratified by Law No. 7 of 2006.
He explained that the reverse burden of proof is prohibited against persons because of
potential errors would violate Human Rights (HAM), contrary to the presumption of
innocence (presumption of innocence) that cause a shift in the evidentiary presumption of
innocence (presumption of guilt) or a presumption of corruption ( presumption of
corruption) and intersecting with the provisions of penal procedure which requires the
burden of proving the defendant is not charged as the provisions of Article 66 Criminal
Procedure Code, Article 66 paragraph (1), (2) and Article 67 paragraph (1) item (i) Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court (International Criminal Court / ICC), Article 11
paragraph (1) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 40 paragraph (2b), item (i)
the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Principle 36 paragraph (1) set the principles for
the protection of all people in any form of detention or imprisonment, the UN General
Assembly Resolution 43/1739 in December 1988 and the International Convention and the
principle of legality.

Evidence Against Money Laundering Case Reversed for, is based and originated at the start
diberlakukaknnya Act No. 25 of 2003 on Money Laundering, the revision of Law No. 15 of
2002. There was a legal product because of international pressure on Indonesia, among
others, from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), international agencies outside of the
United Nations (UN). After Indonesia ratified the United Nations Convention Against Illucit
Traffic in Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Narcitic 1998 (Convention 1998). The
consequences of such ratification, Indonesia should immediately make rules for its
implementation. In fact although there are Law No. 15 of 2002, but its implementation had
not been running and is considered uncooperative by the International State.
The principle of Proof Reversed vs. Presumption of Innocence, The news about tax evasion
by Gaius Tambunan, again triggering the legal discourse to address the rampant cases of
corruption and embezzlement among State officials. As the legal character (character of law)
are constantly changing and moving forward (law in the making), then re mencuatlah one
legal settlement method which we call the "principle of proof upside down" (omkering van
de bewijslast). This is one form of case management efforts to offer solutions to
embezzlement, corruption and money laundering act pindana (money laundry), especially
among our bureaucratic officials.

Reversed burden of proof, it is not known in the legal system of the State of Indonesia. Gap
to use the principle of proof upside down, has been locked tightly in the Book of Criminal
Law (Penal Code) us. In Article 66 KHUP affirmed that, the suspect or the accused does not
bear the burden of proving ". The use of the principle of proof upside down, violating the
fundamental rights of a person. Especially if it is associated with the principle of
presumption of innocence or presumption of innocence. In the international covenants, it has
also been stated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which
has been ratified through Law No. 12 of 2005. In a sense, the ICCPR is fully guarantee the
right to not guilty until proven by law (non self-incrimination). Article 14 Paragraph (3)
letter g of the ICCPR states that, "In determining the charges of criminal offenses against
him, everyone is entitled not to be compelled to testify against oneself or confess guilt".
Legal problems, ie, although the gap to enforce the principle of proof reversed, there are a
number of clauses in our legislation, but it is universally accepted legal principle "lex
superior derogat legi inferiori" or rule of law that a lower level, should be subject to the
jurisdiction of a higher law (Act No. 10 of 2004 on the Establishment of Laws and
Regulations, Article 7, paragraph (1), states that, type and hierarchy of legislation)

Data sources :
http://www.yahoo.com
http://www.detikNews.com
http://www.miftakhulhuda.wordpress.com
http://www.TCJ.co.id
http://www.Republika.co.id
http://www.VIVAnew.com
http://www.MediaIndonesia.com
http://www.LPPI.com
http://www.NASA.com
http://www.Space.com
http://www.Antariksa.com
http://www.KOMPAS.com
http://www.tribunnews.com
http://wwwdetik.com
http://id.wikipedia.org
http://www.CyberNews.com
http://www.Antara.com
http://www.RepublikaOnline.com
http://www.muradi.wordpress.com
http://www.google.com
http://www.CNN.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com
http://www.Liputan6.com