CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR MONEY LAUNDERING INVOLVING THE PROCEEDS OF CORRUPTION FOLLOWING THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL CODE

Money laundering offenses stemming from corruption raise legal issues regarding the status of corruption as the predicate offense, the independence of money laundering offenses, and the construction of criminal liability for individuals and corporations following the enactment of the National Criminal Code on January 2, 2026. Previous research has generally addressed money laundering and corruption separately and has not examined the implications of the National Criminal Code for the construction of criminal liability in money laundering resulting from corruption, resulting in a gap in comprehensive research. The novelty of this study lies in the integration of an analysis of the autonomy of money laundering with the systemic changes in the National Criminal Code, covering individual and corporate liability, as well as the burden of proof. The study aims to analyze the legal status of corruption and money laundering following the enactment of the National Criminal Code and to formulate an ideal framework for criminal liability, using a normative legal research method with legislative, conceptual, and case-based approaches. The research findings indicate that as of January 2, 2026, Article 2(1), Article 3, Article 4, and Article 5 of Law No. 8 of 2010 have been superseded by Articles 607 and 608 of the National Criminal Code, while money laundering remains a standalone offense as affirmed by Article 69 of the Anti-Money Laundering Law and Constitutional Court Decision No. 77/PUU-XII/2014. Corporate liability is regulated through the harmonization of Article 6 of Law No. 8 of 2010 with Articles 45–50 of the National Criminal Code, incorporating the concepts of controlling personnel and failure to prevent as new elements. The reverse burden of proof mechanism (Articles 77–78 of the Anti-Money Laundering Law) provides the defendant with the opportunity to explain the origin of assets without eliminating the public prosecutor’s obligation to prove the elements of the criminal offense. Thus, corruption remains the predicate offense, and the amendments to the National Criminal Code do not eliminate this relationship but rather alter the normative framework of criminal liability through the harmonization of provisions between the Anti-Money Laundering Law and the National Criminal Code.