Purpose

This study aims to investigate Indonesian regulation of Article 69 of the Money Laundering Criminal Act (TPPU) related to proving predicate crimes, as it leaves a debate whether it must be proven beforehand or not.

Design/methodology/approach

This research is a normative juridical study, in addition to examining the views of criminal law experts on the formulation of Article 69 of the TPPU Law; it is also extended to the practice of prosecution and court decisions in TPPU cases.

Findings

The results of this study show that there are two views related to the obligation to not prove the corruption in the ML case. The first view states that the origin of corruption must be proven, especially because ML is a follow-up crime, so it is necessary to prove corrosive crime as one of the predicate offenses. The second view states that the predicate offense of corruption does not have to be proven beforehand because TPPU is an independent offense.

Originality/value

This research focuses on analyzing whether or not it is obligatory to prove the original crime of corruption in the money laundering case.

中文翻译：

---

印度尼西亚法律中的腐败、资产来源和洗钱刑事案件

目的

本研究旨在调查印度尼西亚对洗钱犯罪法 (TPPU) 第 69 条与证明上游犯罪有关的规定，因为它留下了是否必须事先证明的争论。

设计/方法/方法

本研究是一项规范性司法研究，此外还考察了刑法专家对制定TPPU法第69条的看法；它还扩展到TPPU案件中的起诉和法院判决的实践。

发现

本研究的结果表明，在机器学习案件中，关于不证明腐败的义务存在两种观点。第一种观点认为，必须证明腐败的起源，特别是由于机器学习是一种后续犯罪，因此有必要将腐蚀性犯罪作为上游犯罪之一进行证明。第二种观点认为，由于 TPPU 是一项独立的犯罪，因此不必事先证明腐败的上游犯罪。

原创性/价值

本研究重点分析洗钱案件中的原罪是否具有证明腐败罪的义务。