Purchasing Operations at Digital's Computer Asset Recovery Facility

Author(s):  
Joseph Sarkis ◽  
Mark Liffers ◽  
Susan Malette
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Theodore S. Greenberg ◽  
Linda Samuel ◽  
Wingate Grant ◽  
Larissa Gray
Keyword(s):  

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Leasure

Purpose – Asset recovery proceedings increasingly target corrupt foreign officials who acquire lavish assets as a result of capital gained through criminal acts. One extremely difficult issue arising in asset recovery proceedings is whether the capital used to acquire the assets can be traced to a criminal act. The purpose of this paper is to critique US tracing procedure through comparative analysis. Design/methodology/approach – A prominent series of cases brought by the USA and France against assets owned by Teodoro “Teodorín” Nguema Obiang, second Vice President of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, produced mixed results on the tracing element. This paper utilizes a qualitative comparative case analysis to examine the US and French cases. Findings – The US results reflect serious weaknesses in the US law as compared to more effective French asset recovery procedure. Originality/value – Though this paper is certainly a comparative case study analysis, nearly identical facts and two different jurisdictions reaching separate conclusions bring us in the legal community as close as we can realistically come to quasi-experimental research. Comparative research in this area is severely lacking and sorely needed. The mechanisms identified in the French system clearly show flaws that are present in the US system.


Author(s):  
Komang Ekayana

Corrupted state assets certainly hurt the country narrowly, but also broadly where it harms the country and its people. However, the formal approach through the current criminal procedure law has not been able to recover the losses suffered by the state. In fact, state losses resulting from corruption are state assets that must be saved. Then there needs to be a new breakthrough to recover state losses through the asset recovery model. When looking at the country from the perspective of the victims, the state must obtain protection, in this case recovery from the losses suffered due to corruption. This paper examines the model of returning assets resulting from corruption in the law enforcement process that focuses on the rule of law in the 2003 UNCAC Convention and the mechanism of returning state assets in terms of Law No. 20 of 2001 concerning amendments to Law No. 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Corruption Crimes. 


LITIGASI ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Haswandi Haswandi

Criminal laws regulating asset recovery of corruption today experience a paradigm oversight since it only relies on the money substitute in corruption under Article 18 of Law No. 31, 1999 concerning The Eradication of The Crime of Corruption as amended with the Law No. 20, 2001 in which asset recovery is addressed only to the convict. In fact, modus to cover up the proceed of corruption usually involves the family, close relatives or confidants including the heirs. The obstacle in recovering the asset is that civil lawsuit is not yet effective as the means to recover the asset, the organization of law enforcement, the ratification of 2003 UNCAC that is also not yet effectively implemented in Indonesian law, and the laws against corruption that are weak. Future concept of law in asset recovery of proceed of corruption by the culprit and the heirs in order to materialize a legal welfare state should at least done through progressive laws i.e. reformation of law, optimization of Mutual Legal Assistance, the widening of authority implemented by the Eradication Commission of Corruption in recovering the asset as the proceed of corruption, the strong inter-agency coordination of law enforcements, and the urgency to promulgate the Recovery Asset Act.Keyword: Recovery; Proceed of Corruption; HeirsABSTRAKPerangkat hukum pidana dalam mengembalikan aset hasil tindak pidana korupsi pada saat ini mengalami kekeliruan paradigma karena hanya mengandalkan uang pengganti kejahatan korupsi yang terkandung dalam Pasal 18 Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 Tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi sebagaimana telah diubah dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001, di mana Pengembalian harta atau kekayaan hanya ditujukan kepada terpidana. Padahal modus menyembunyikan harta kekayaan hasil korupsi biasanya dengan menggunakan sanak keluarga, kerabat dekat atau orang kepercayaannya termasuk para ahli warisnya. Hambatan pengembalian aset tindak pidana korupsi disebabkan belum efektifnya gugatan perdata sebagai sarana untuk mengembalikan aset hasil kejahatan korupsi, kelembagaan penegak hukum, belum efektifnya Ratifikasi UNCAC 2003 dilaksanakan dalam hukum Indonesia, serta kelemahan di ranah regulasi tindak pidana korupsi. Konsep hukum mendatang dalam pengembalian aset tindak pidana korupsi pelaku dan ahli warisnya dalam mewujudkan negara hukum kesejahteraan, setidaknya ditempuh dalam beberapa langkah hukum progresif, yakni perbaikan regulasi peraturan perundang-undangan, optimalisasi Bantuan Hukum Timbal Balik, Perluasan kewenangan Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi dalam Pengembalian Aset hasil tindak pidana korupsi, Penguatan koordinasi antar lembaga penegak hukum, serta menyegerakan menyelesaikan Undang-Undang Pengembalian Aset.Kata Kunci: Pengembalian; Aset Korupsi; Ahli Waris 


2011 ◽  
pp. 121-158
Author(s):  
Jean-Pierre Brun ◽  
Larissa Gray ◽  
Clive Scott ◽  
Kevin M. Stephenson

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document