THE EXISTENCE OF IN ABSENTIA TRIALS IN CORRUPTION CASES FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF JUSTICE

Abstract

Law Number 8 of 1981, also known as the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), regulates the
procedures for resolving cases through trials in court, either with the presence of the defendant or
without his presence (In Absentia). In this regard, the author is interested in writing and conducting
research on the procedure for resolving cases through the In Absentia trial mechanism. According to
the provisions of criminal procedure law, the settlement of a case should involve the presence of the
defendant. However, In Absentia trials, especially for extraordinary crimes such as corruption, can still
be conducted in court even without the presence of the defendant.
In this research, the problem formulation includes 1) How is the existence of In Absentia trials in the
Indonesian Criminal Procedure Law system? 2) How can state financial losses be recovered using the
In Absentia trial instrument?
This type of research is normative legal research. Normative legal research emphasizes law as a norm
(rule), so the research focuses on positive law.
Articles 196 and 214 of the Criminal Procedure Code explicitly contain limited provisions regarding
the defendant's absence from trial proceedings. However, these articles allow for in-absentia trials in
special or urgent circumstances.
One of the primary and most important goals in eradicating corruption is asset recovery. In absentia
decisions allow judges to impose additional penalties in the form of restitution and confiscation of the
convict's assets, which is the most practical objective of the mechanism.