Penelitian ini menganalisis perbandingan konsep perampasan aset yang diatur dalam hukum positif di Indonesia dengan konsep perampasan aset menurut Rancangan Undang-Undang Tentang Perampasan Aset Terkait Dengan Tindak Pidana, serta urgensi instrumen perampasan aset tanpa pemidanaan atau Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture di Indonesia dengan melakukan studi kasus terhadap tindak pidana korupsi dan tindak pidana pencucian uang yang dilakukan oleh Pinangki Sirna Malasari. Penelitian ini disusun dengan menggunakan metode penelitian doktrinal. Perampasan Aset merupakan upaya paksa negara yang didasarkan atas putusan pengadilan yang berkekuatan hukum tetap guna pengambilan kekuasaan dan/atau kepemilikan suatu aset tindak pidana tanpa penghukuman kepada pelakunya. Rezim Perampasan Aset di Indonesia masih menekankan pemidanaan terhadap pelaku kejahatan sebelum dapat merampas aset hasil kejahatan dari pelakunya, di mana pendekatan seperti ini disebut perampasan aset secara in personam. Perampasan aset secara in personam terbukti seringkali menemui kendala, sehingga Jaksa tidak dapat secara cepat merampas aset tindak pidana. Salah satu kasus yang terbukti menimbulkan kerugian keuangan negara adalah kasus mantan Jaksa Pinangki Sirna Malasari dalam Putusan Nomor 38/Pid.Sus-TPK/2020/PN Jkt.Pst. Aset hasil kejahatan yang berhasil dirampas dari Pinangki Sirna Malasari tidak sebanding dengan jumlah aset yang berhasil ia peroleh dari tindak pidana korupsi dan tindak pidana pencucian uang. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa Indonesia memerlukan pendekatan perampasan aset secara Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture melalui pengesahan RUU Tentang Perampasan Aset Terkait Dengan Tindak Pidana menjadi Undang-Undang. Penelitian ini juga menunjukkan bahwa RUU tersebut terbukti efektif jika digunakan sebagai dasar hukum dalam merampas aset hasil kejahatan dari Pinangki Sirna Malasari.

---

This research analyzes the comparison of the concept of asset confiscation regulated in positive law in Indonesia with the concept of asset confiscation according to the Draft Law on Confiscation of Assets Related to Criminal Acts, as well as the urgency of the instrument of asset confiscation without punishment or Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture in Indonesia by conducting a study case regarding criminal acts of corruption and criminal acts of money laundering committed by Pinangki Sirna Malasari. This research was prepared using doctrinal research methods. Asset confiscation is a state coercive measure based on a court decision that has permanent legal force to take power and/or ownership of a criminal asset without punishing the perpetrator. The Asset Confiscation regime in Indonesia still emphasizes punishing criminals before they can confiscate the assets resulting from crime from the perpetrators, where this approach is called in personam asset confiscation. It has been proven that confiscation of assets in personam often encounters obstacles, so that prosecutors cannot quickly confiscate criminal assets. One of the cases proven to have caused state financial losses was the case of former Prosecutor Pinangki Sirna Malasari in Decision Number 38/Pid.Sus-TPK/2020/PN Jkt.Pst. The criminal assets that were confiscated from Pinangki Sirna Malasari were not comparable to the amount of assets he managed to obtain from criminal acts of corruption and money laundering. The results of this research indicate that Indonesia needs a Non-Conviction Based Asset Forfeiture approach to confiscation of assets through the ratification of the Bill Concerning Confiscation of Assets Related to Criminal Acts into law. This research also shows that the bill has proven effective if used as a legal basis for confiscating assets resulting from crime from Pinangki Sirna Malasari.