A case study on the defrauding by omission - focused on the Supreme Court Decision 2017Do20682 -

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 601-621
Author(s):  
En-seok Zi ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
The Supreme Court

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 Restitusi Kelebihan Pembayaran Pajak Bea Perolehan Hak Atas Tanah dan Bangunan (Studi Kasus Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1154/B/PK/PJK/2017)

Notaire ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 333
Author(s):  
Alya Adelina
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Future

Duty on the Acquisition of Land and Building Rights or BPHTB is a tax on the acquisition of rights to land and building. It is likely that in the future there will be an overpayment of BPHTB; in the case study of the Supreme Court Decision Number 1154/B/PK/PJK/2017, there was an overpayment of non-payable tax in 2009 by PT Bumi Sawit Permai to KPP Pratama Prabu Mulih which had just been filed at in 2012. There was a difference in authority in returning the BPHTB overpayment, considering that Law No. 20 of 2000, Amendment to Law Number 21 of 1997 on Duty on the Acquisition of Land and Building Rights, which classified BPHTB under Central Tax, was revoked and declared no longer valid since January 1st, 2011, replaced by Law No. 28 of 2009 on Regional Taxes and Retribution (UU PDRD) that classified it under Regional Tax. According to article 23 paragraph (1), (1a) and (2) Law Number 20 of 2000 on Amendment to Law Number 21 of 1997 on Duty on the Acquisition of Land and Building Rights, it was KPP Pratama Prabumulih’s obligation to return the overpayment of the non-payable tax. Keywords: Tax Overpayment; BPHTB; Tax Office.Bea Perolehan Hak Atas Tanah atau BPHTB adalah pajak atas perolehan hak atas tanah dan bangunan. Tidak menutup kemungkinan bahwa dikemudian hari terjadi kelebihan pembayaran BPHTB, dalam studi kasus Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1154/B/PK/PJK/2017 terjadi kelebihan pembayaran pajak tidak terhutang pada tahun 2009 oleh PT Bumi Sawit Permai kepada KPP Pratama Prabu Mulih yang baru diajukan pada tahun 2012. Terjadi perbedaan kewenangan dalam pengembalian kelebihan pembayaran BPHTB, mengingat undang-undang No 20 Tahun 2000, Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 21 Tahun 1997 Tentang Bea Perolehan Hak Atas Tanah Dan Bangunan dicabut dan dinyatakan tidak berlaku lagi sejak 1 januari 2011 yang awalnya BPHTB diklasifikasikan dalam Pajak Pusat, kemudian diganti dengan Undang-Undang No 28 Tahun 2009 tentang Pajak Daerah dan Retribusi Daerah (UU PDRD) menjadi pajak Daerah. Berdasarkan pasal 23 ayat (1), (1a) dan (2) Undang-undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2000 Tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 21 Tahun 1997 tentang Bea Perolehan Hak Atas Tanah dan Bangunan, maka sudah menjadi kewajiban KPP Pratama Prabumulih untuk mengembalikan kelebihan pembayaran pajak tidak terhutang tersebut. Kata Kunci: Kelebihan Pajak; BPHTB; Kantor Pelayanan Pajak.

scholarly journals Pembayaran Uang Pengganti Oleh Terpidana Dalam Kasus Tindak Pidana Korupsi Studi Kasus Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 520 K/Pid.Sus/2017 (Payment Of Substitute Money By Convicted Persons In Cases Of Corruption Case Study Of Supreme Court Decision Number 520 K/Pid.Sus/2017)

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Anak Agung Ananda Putra Pangjaya ◽  
Anak Agung Sagung Laksmi Dewi ◽  
I Nyoman Sujana
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Policy ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Complex Problem ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Policy Tool ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Face ◽  
Compensation Payments

Abstract-Evasion of money or fraud in using power is a complex problem that must be addressed, in order to achieve just and healthy and advanced economic growth and conditions. In the face of the complexity of the problem of corruption so far, it is wrong to fight the crime of embezzlement of money that has been known to be through means of criminal law as a criminal policy tool in combating or eradicating crime. compensation payments in cases of corruption include additional penalties other than decisions on criminal penalties and fines, there are also a number of problems here, namely, how to regulate substitute money payments made by convicted corruption cases and how the judge considers the payment of substitute money as a basis carried out by convicted cases of corruption. This type of research is normative juridical with the approach used, namely the negotiation approach and presented descriptively. The results of the discussion show that the voluntary implementation by the convict for a period of 1 (one) month after the Supreme Court Decision Number 520 K / PID.SUS / 2017 dated June 20, 2017 is a cumulative imperative and it fulfills the judicial and non-judicial aspects of judges' judgments. The advice that can be given is the payment of substitute money must be really carried out in the verdict and not until the imposition of criminal corruption only pays a fine with the transfer of the case only as a mistake administration of judges' decisions must fulfill juridical and non-juridical aspects but not ultra-light that the judge does not may impose a sentence higher than the maximum threat in the indicted market. Keywords: Convicted, Corruption, Replacement Money Abstrak-Penggelapan uang atau penyelewengan dalam menggunakan kekuasaan merupakan permasalahan yang komplek yang harus ditangani, agar tercapai pertumbuhan dan kondisi ekonomi yang adil dan sehat serta maju. Dalam menghadapi kompleksitas selama ini masalah korupsi, maka salah satu memerangi kejahatan penggelapan uang yang selama ini diketahui adalah melalui sarana hukum pidana sebagai alat kebijakan kriminal dalam memerangi atau memberantas kejahatan. Pembayaran ganti kerugian dalam kasus tindak pidana korupsi termasuk dalam pidana tambahan selain dari putusan penjatuhan hukuman pidana dan denda, adapun permasalahan yang diangkat disini yaitu, bagaimana pengaturan Pembayaran uang pengganti yang dilakukan oleh terpidana kasus tindak korupsi Dan bagaimana dasar pertimbangan hakim dalam Pembayaran uang pengganti yang dilakukan oleh terpidana kasus tindak pidana korupsi. Tipe penelitian ini adalah yuridis normatif denga pendekatan yang digunakan yaitu pendekatan perundang-undangan dan disajikan secara deskriptif. Hasil pembahasan menunjukan bahwa pelaksanaa secara sukarela oleh terpidana selama tenggang waktu 1 (satu) bulan sesudah Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 520 K/PID.SUS/2017 tertanggal 20 Juni 2017 bersifat imperatif komulatif dan sudah memenuhi aspek pertimbangan yuridis dan non yuridis hakim. Adapun saran yang dapat diberikan adalah pembayaran uang pengganti harus benar-benar dilaksanakan dalam penjatuhan vonisnya dan jangan sampai penjatuhan pidana korupsi hanya membayar denda saja dengan pengalihan kasusnya hanya sebagai kesalah administrasi putusan hakim harus memenuhi aspek yuridis dan non yuridis namun tidak ultra pelita yaitu hakim tidak boleh menjatuhkan hukuman lebih tinggi daripada ancaman maksimum dalam pasal yang didakwakan. Kata Kunci: Terpidana, Korupsi, Uang Pengganti

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document