The Storage House for Confiscated Objects and State-Confiscated Goods (RUPBASAN) has the main task of storing confiscated and confiscated state-owned objects. The background to the problem of conducting this research is because there are several RUPBASANs in Indonesia that do not have adequate infrastructure to carry out their functions. Apart from that, RUPBASAN's position seems to be overridden by other agencies in terms of storing confiscated objects. The aim of this research is to determine the effectiveness of Article 44 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the storage of confiscated objects in relation to the judicial process at the Class II RUPBASAN Cilacap. This type of research includes empirical research by comparing rules with facts that occur in the field. The analysis used is
qualitative data analysis, meaning that the data that has been collected will be described and analyzed so as to obtain answers to the problems being studied. The
results of this research show that there are several causes for RUPBASAN Class II Cilacap to implement Article 44 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the storage of confiscated objects. The causes include lack of adequate infrastructure,
lack of human resources, the authority of other agencies similar to RUPBASAN. The conclusion of this research is that the position of RUPBASAN Cilacap in implementing Article 44 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the storage of
confiscated objects is less effective due to several existing causal factors.