scholarly journals Penyesuaian Batasan Tindak Pidana Ringan dan Jumlah Denda Dalam Kuhp Terhadap Perkara Tindak Pidana Pencurian (Analisis Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 02 Tahun 2012 Tentang Penyesuaian Batasan Tindak Pidana Ringan dan Jumlah Denda Dalam Kuhp)

2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Soma Karya Madari
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Police Department ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Mutual Agreement

Abstract: Compliance of the Limitation of Minor Crimes and the Amount of Fines in Criminal Code towards Stealing Case. After the Rise of Supreme Court Decision Number 02 Year 2012, the regulation on the amount of fine in Criminal Code has been changed. Implication of this new regulation is the application of fast check in handling light stealing case which its value below 2.500.00 rupiahs, Since the regulation is only bound by Supreme Court Institution, a Mutual agreement between law enforcements institution has been made by the creating of “Mahkumjapaol” which consist of Supreme Court, Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, Prosecutor Office and Police Department in regulating detail guidelines on the limit of fine in the minor stealing case.Abstrak: Penyesuaian Batasan Tindak Pidana Ringan dan Jumlah Denda Dalam KUHP Terhadap Perkara Tindak Pidana Pencurian. Pasca terbitnya PERMA Nomor 02 Tahun 2012 maka aturan tentang jumlah denda dalam KUHP berubah. Implikasi yang ditimbulkan dari berlakunya PERMA tersebut adalah diterapkannya pemeriksaan acara cepat dalam penanganan perkara tindak pidana pencurian ringan yang nilainya di bawah Rp. 2.500.000.00. Oleh karena Peraturan Mahkamah Agung hanya mengikat lingkungan Mahkamah Agung saja. Maka, dibuat suatu bentuk kesepahaman dengan lembaga penegak hukum lainnya melalui Forum Mahkumjapaol yang beranggotakan Mahkamah Agung, Kementerian Hukum dan HAM, Kejaksaan Agung, dan POLRI telah menyusun kerangka acuan yang lebih rinci mengenai batasan denda dalam perkara tindak pidana ringan DOI: 10.15408/jch.v1i2.3000

scholarly journals The Urgency of Trademark Registration for Business Actors (Case Study of Supreme Court Decision No 575 K / Pdt.Sus-HKI / 2020 Between Ruben Samuel Onsu vs PT Ayam Geprek Benny Sujono)

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 250-259
Author(s):  
Nurhani Fithriah
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Geographical Indications ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Business People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Trademark Registration

Brand registration is very important for business people. A brand is one of the distinguishing entities between the business activities of business actors. The problem occurs when business actors already have a trademark which is then well known in the community but in fact they have not registered the trademark, as experienced by Ruben Samuel Onsu with his Geprek chicken business. However, in its development, it turns out that there are other business actors using the same mark but have registered the mark. This research was conducted using a normative method through a statutory approach and concepts. This research examines the Supreme Court's decision rejecting the appeal from Ruben Samuel Onsu and analyzes the urgency and procedures for trademark registration. Based on the research results, trademark law in Indonesia is regulated in Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications. The terms and procedures for application for registration of a mark are regulated in Article 4 - Article 8 and further regulated in the Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights No. registration of a mark and being recognized as the legal owner of the mark and rights to the mark are obtainedafter the mark is registered. Ruben Onsu's Bensu mark was declared invalid because Ruben Onsu was not the first party to register the mark, and the Supreme Court decided to cancel all trademark applications made by Ruben Onsu.

scholarly journals Analisis Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 50 P/HUM/2018 tentang Pembatalan Permenkumham Nomor 25 Tahun 2017

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 139
Author(s):  
Deno Ukida Narasoma ◽  
Iwan Permadi ◽  
Diah Aju Wisnu Wardhani
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Historical Approach ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
Legal Consequences

This study aimed to analyze the reasons the Supreme Court issued a Supreme Court Decision Number 50 P/HUM/2018 which decided the cancellation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation Number 25 of 2017 and analyze the legal consequences of the decision on new notary candidates. This study used normative juridical with a statutory approach and historical approach. The reasons the Supreme Court issued Supreme Court Decision Number 50 P/HUM/2018 were influenced by two factors, i.e., juridical and non-juridical factors. The legal consequences of the Supreme Court Decision Number 50 P/HUM/2018 for new notary candidates was the disappearance of the notary candidate’s obligation to take the notary appointment exam and the emergence of problems related to the clarity of the qualifications that should be completed to register as a notary because the ruling resulted in a legal vacuum related to the terms of the conditions in the appointment of a public notary.

scholarly journals Les aléas de la fraude en droit criminel

2005 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 813-851
Author(s):  
Pierre Rainville
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Criminal Offence ◽  
Territorial Jurisdiction ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Impact

Even though section 338 Cr.C. appears in Part VIII of the Criminal Code entitled « Fraudulent transactions relating to Contracts and Trade », the criminal offence of fraud is of a much broader scope. The liberal interpretation received from the courts has transformed this crime into one of the widest and sometimes most unpredictable offences. The author first discusses Canada's territorial jurisdiction over international fraud in the light of the recent Libman case. He then proceeds to examine the impact of the Supreme Court decision in Vezina v. R. on the « deprivation » requirement in the definition of fraud. This text also concentrates on the objective-subjective mens rea dilemna and on a comparison of the constitutive elements of fraud, theft and false pretences. The author finally concludes that sections 320 and 338 Cr.C call out for immediate reform.

Media Agendas and Human Rights: The Supreme Court Decision on Abortion

1978 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 544-548 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Crothers Pollock ◽  
James Lee Robinson ◽  
Mary Carmel Murray
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
The Supreme Court

TINJAUAN YURIDIS MENGENAI TINDAK PIDANA YANG DITUNTUT DENGAN PASAL 351 (3) KUHP STUDI KASUS PUTUSAN MA NO. 1043 K/PID/2016

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-62
Author(s):  
Rahmat Saputra
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
District Court ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Literature Study ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Supreme Court

The purpose of this study was to provide an overview of the actions of the defendant already fulfilling the elements of Article 351 paragraph (3) of the Criminal Code in the Supreme Court Decision No. 1043 K / PID / 2016 and to illustrate the basic consideration of the judge in imposing a verdict on a criminal offense charged with Article 351 paragraph (3) of the Criminal Code in the Supreme Court decision No. 1043 K / PID / 2016. The method used in this study is normative law research. Data collection methods in this study were carried out with literature study, which is a method of collecting data by searching and reviewing library materials (literature, research results, scientific magazines, scientific bulletins, scientific journals). Data collection techniques using qualitative analysis methods. The conclusion in this study is the application of material criminal law by the Panel of Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Number 1043 K / PID / 2016 which corrected the decision of the Banjarmasin High Court Number 59 / PID / 2016 / PT.BJM, dated 13 July 2016 which strengthened the Kotabaru District Court Decision Number 64 / Pid.B/2016/PN. Ktb, dated April 27, 2016 stating that the defendant Nanang Ramli bin (late) Syamsudin was proven legally and convincingly guilty of committing a criminal act of maltreatment which resulted in the death of the victim Jumadi alias jumai bin yahya ( alm) as stipulated in Article 351 paragraph (3) the Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code) is correct, it is in accordance with the Public Prosecutor's Subsidies indictment, and has been based on the facts of the trial, the evidence presented The Public Prosecutor is in the form of witness statements, evidence, post mortem, and statements of the defendant. The Panel of Judges of the Kotabaru District Court in its consideration there are still some shortcomings, especially in its subjective considerations, namely on consideration of things that are burdensome and matters that alleviate the defendant. The consideration used by the judge in this case only focuses on the perpetrators of the crime. Whereas Article 5 paragraph (1) of Law Number 48 Year concerning Judicial Power requires judges to explore, follow, and understand the legal values ​​and sense of justice that lives in society. This means that the judge must also consider the loss of the crime victim, and the community

scholarly journals The Impact of Vaillancourt v. the Queen on Canadian Criminal Law

1969 ◽  
pp. 443
Author(s):  
Isabel Grant
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Objective Standard ◽  
The Impact

The 1987 Supreme Court decision of Vaillancourt Struck down s. 213(d) of the Criminal Code, finding that the constructive murder provision violated ss. 7and 11(d) of the Charter. This paper looks at how the courts have since applied Vaillancourt to other sections of the Criminal Code, particularly the remaining murder provisions. The analysis is based largely on a consequence-circumstance distinction, where legally consequences involve the harm caused by the accused and the circumstances refer to conditions that must be shown to exist before there can be a conviction. However, because murder is a unique crime with a "special stigma" attached to it, courts will not allow an objective standard of mens rea to form the basis of a murder conviction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document