Optimizing the Role of Public Prosecutors in Determining Confiscated Goods Confiscated for the State by Third Parties Who Have Good Faith

Abstract

The writing of this article was motivated by the polemic regarding determining the status of confiscated evidence, on the other hand, the confiscated evidence for the state left new arrears for the State Attorney, due to a civil lawsuit from a third party who felt aggrieved by the decision. The Prosecutor's inaccuracy in determining which evidence to confiscate for the state can certainly damage the reputation of the Prosecutor's Office as a state institution. Therefore, the purpose of writing this article is to analyze how to optimize the role of public prosecutors in determining confiscated goods that are confiscated by the state, which belong to third parties who have good intentions. The research method used in this research is normative legal research using a statutory approach. Through this research, it is clear that the consequences of confiscating and confiscating evidence resulting from criminal acts make it difficult to return the evidence once the execution has been carried out. Even if a lawsuit is filed in court, arguing that the prosecutor committed an unlawful act as a result of his inaccuracy in identifying the ownership of evidence belonging to a third party, it is not easy to prove because the prosecutor's action was a statutory order in the context of law enforcement. The role and efforts of prosecutors in optimizing the return of property stolen from criminal acts belonging to third parties can be carried out by carrying out preventive efforts.