Published Paper Details:

This paper initiates a criminal substitute for a fine in Law No. 8 of 2010 concerning money laundering. The research method used in this study is juridical normative. The results of this study indicate that the TPPU Law does not regulate the length of a substitute imprisonment if a fine has been paid in part by a convicted person or corporation. Therefore, the determination of the length of the substitute imprisonment penalty refers to Article 30 paragraph (4) of the Criminal Code. Related to this, the implication of the length of substitute imprisonment penalties that must be served will exceed 1 year 4 months as stipulated in Article 8 of the TPPU Law. Based on several court decisions in North Sumatra, criminal reformulation should be carried out in place of a more appropriate fine in Law No. 8 of 2010 concerning TPPU, namely the taking of assets or income of a convicted person, if it is not sufficient, then the convicted wa jib repay the criminal penalty, and if the convicted person does not pay the criminal penalty in installments, then it is replaced with imprisonment for at least 1 year or can be paid / charged to the criminal heirs and the longest as threatened for a crime that is a crime.