In simple terms, Money Laundering (TPPU) is money that comes from criminal acts, is hidden and disguised, until finally the money is seemingly obtained in a clean way. In article 2 paragraphs (1) and (2) The Money Laundering Law, it is stated that the proceeds of the crime in question come from corruption, bribery, narcotics, psychotropics, trafficking in persons, and several other criminal acts mentioned in the law.

Article 2 of the Money Laundering Law provides a broader definition that the flow of money originating from domestic national crimes, but originating from international-scale crime flows. Until now, the stigma of money laundering in society only comes from the crime of corruption, namely the state budget APBN/APBD, even though money laundering can come from many other crimes regulated by law and the value is very large.

Ambiguity of Law Enforcement

In legal terminology, money laundering is known as follow up crime, which means that this crime occurs as a result or continuation of the original crime (predicate crime) that produces money laundering. The original crime or, in legal terminology, called predicate crime is then defined in article 2 of the Money Laundering Law.

So far, money laundering in Indonesia is still in the midst of ambiguity and weak law enforcement. Among experts and lawmakers, there is still confusion with the mechanisms, definitions, and practices in the field of money laundering law enforcement. Even among experts, there is still no unanimous understanding, let alone in the community who do not clearly know the understanding related to money laundering. People are only groping for the fantastic values mentioned in the media, without knowing where the money laundering actually comes from.

In addition, one of the obstacles to the minimal law enforcement of money laundering cases is because the investigation process takes a long time, which hinders the process of submitting cases from the original crime, so many investigators do not carry out Money Laundering investigations. In practice, the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Center (PPATK) is often faced with significant limitations of authority.

One of the fundamental weaknesses is that this institution does not have the authority to conduct direct investigations or prosecutions of money laundering cases. PPATK's function is limited to analysis and reporting, which then depends on the response of law enforcement officials to follow up. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for PPATK's analysis reports to not be followed up optimally.