Restitution for money laundering crimes in Indonesia is entirely directed at the state in the form of asset confiscation from parties who have been subject to criminal sanctions. However, this becomes problematic when there are victims who are directly harmed by money laundering due to the absence of a restitution mechanism that is supposed to be the victim's right. Based on this problem, this study aims to analyze the conformity between normative provisions on asset confiscation and the victim restitution mechanism within the applicable legal framework in Indonesia. The method used is normative legal research with a statutory, conceptual, and case-based approach, referring to the case of Decision Number 3692 K/Pid.Sus/2023. The results of the study indicate that the legal norms related to money laundering and victims' restitution rights encounter a structural norm conflict composed of three layers of gaps: substantive conflict between norms at the same level, the absence of a coordination clause in the Money Laundering Law, and the limitations of the Supreme Court Regulation as a procedural instrument. The disparity in decisions in the cases discussed in this article indicates a direct consequence of the structural deficiencies in the legal norm system within the country. Based on this, the author suggests the need for legislative reform that integrates the concept of restoring victims' restitution rights into the asset confiscation framework.