Corruption as a crime must be eradicated, so it can be an early stage of sttlement of various
crisis in Indonesia. In the discourse of criminal prevention by criminal law, including corruption, in
the science level, it becomes criminal politic study area by using criminal policy by penal.
Juridically, the eradication of corruption criminal act must be upheld through evidence to affirm that
corrupt action has been done, as well as criminal action. Yet, considering corruption is a crime
beyond the reach of the law as the perpetrator has high social=politic status (white collar crime), so
such proof verification is very difficult to be performed, especially by beyond reasonable doubt from
a prosecuter as it is regulated in Criminal Code. To solve such difficult problem of proof verification
is by applying burden of proof reversal to corruption cases in the trial process in court, as the
realization of extra ordinary measure. Yet, the application of this proof system is categorized as
violation against constitution, criminal law, presumption of innocence and non self in crimination
as it is implemented in the instrument of international human right protection. There fore, using
perspective of criminal politic, the system of proof reversal of burden in corruption case in Indonesia
should be analyzed related to human right, and the process of trial in court by using system of proof
reversal of burden.
This reseach has used a descriptive analytic method by describing facts and legal problems
systematically and analyzed this reaseach has used a jurudicial normative approach method and used
secondary data related to criminal law politic.
The result of the research of the first problem shows that the system of proof reversal of burden
in Indonesia does not violate material criminal law system because corruption is categorized as
special crime. So it is justified by principle of lex specialis derogat legi generalis, or formal criminal
laws system as it still refers to applicable criminal procedure law/due process of law, and still applies
negative proof system or beyond reasonable doubt, it is not against constitution and human right of
perpetrator of corruption, and it applies priciple of presumption of innocence and nonself
incrimination, so every human right of criminal is till respected and protected. Whereas the result of
the research of the second problem show that; according to perspective of criminal policy, the
prevention of corruption criminal act by using the system of proof reversal of burden in the trial
process in court will be very effective if it is performed in the frame work of the proof of the origin
of wealth which has been suspected as the result of corruption criminal act for the purpose of refund
of state financial losses (asset recovery) by seizing asset which has been suspected to be the result
of corruption criminal act by using civil based forfeiture as it has been mandated by UNCAC 2003.
The system of proof reversal of burden is only performed to the origin of the ownership of the assets
of the perpetrators of corruption criminal act by tacking proff policy in the form of balanced
probability priciples, so the implementation still upholds human rights and due process of law, and
puts the human right of the perpretator in high position using high balanced probability priciples
with proof system according to the laws negatively or beyond reasonable doubt.