Tindak pidana korupsi yang modusnya semakin berkembang hingga pengalihan hasil dari negara asal ke negara lain menjadi salah satu fokus utama munculnya kerjasama internasional yang kemudian melahirkan UNCAC. Melalui konvensi tersebut, dimuat 11 perbuatan yang dikriminalisasi sebagai korupsi, salah satunya Illicit Enrichment. Di samping definisinya yang sangat bervariasi di berbagai negara, ditemukan pula pendekatan pengaturan yang beragam, mulai dari pengaturan secara pidana, perdata, maupun administratif. Adapun penulisan ini menggunakan metode penelitian doktrinal atau kepustakaan dengen pendekatan konseptual (conceptual approach) dan pendekatan perbandingan (comparative approach), yakni dengan negara Hong Kong yang mengatur Illicit Enrichment secara pidana dan Australia yang mengatur Illicit Enrichment secara perdata. Untuk menghasilkan rekomendasi pengaturan Illicit Enrichment, digunakan perbandingan berdasarkan karakteristik masing-masing pendekatan yang dipandang menjadi indikator penting dalam mengatur Illicit Enrichment, yakni ruang lingkup penerapan, pembalikan beban pembuktian, instrumen yang memicu investigasi, dan sanksi. Walaupun Indonesia saat ini belum mengadopsi Illicit Enrichment yang diamanatkan UNCAC, nyatanya aparat penegak hukum menggunakan mekanisme yang dikenal dalam Illicit Enrichment sebagaimana dalam penanganan perkara gratifikasi dan pencucian uang oleh Rafael Alun Trisambodo. Melalui tulisan ini, Penulis sangat menyarankan lembaga legislatif untuk mengadopsi Illicit Enrichment dalam RUU Perampasan Aset versi terbaru, atau bahkan dalam UU PTPK.

---

Corruption, whose modus operandi has evolved to the transfer of proceeds from the country of origin to other countries, has become one of the main focuses of the emergence of international cooperation which later gave birth to the UNCAC. Through this convention, 11 acts are criminalized as corruption, one of which is Illicit Enrichment. In addition to the definitions that vary widely in various countries, there are also various regulatory approaches, ranging from criminal, civil, and administrative arrangements. This paper uses a doctrinal research method with a conceptual approach and a comparative approach, namely with Hong Kong, which regulates Criminal Illicit Enrichment, and Australia, which regulates Civil Illicit Enrichment. To produce recommendations for regulating Illicit Enrichment, a comparison is made based on the characteristics of each approach that are considered to be important indicators in regulating Illicit Enrichment, namely the scope of application, reversal of the burden of proof, instruments that trigger investigations, and sanctions. Although Indonesia has not yet adopted Illicit Enrichment as mandated by UNCAC, law enforcement officers have in fact used mechanisms known in Illicit Enrichment as in the handling of graft and money laundering cases by Rafael Alun Trisambodo. Through this paper, the author strongly recommends the legislature to adopt Illicit Enrichment in the latest version of the RUU Perampasan Aset, or even in the UU PTPK.