scholarly journals Ajaran Turut Serta Tindak Pidana Korupsi

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-52
Author(s):  
Harry Arfhan ◽  
Mohd. Din ◽  
Sulaiman Sulaiman
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Banda Aceh

Penyertaan pada dasarnya diatur dalam pasal 55 dan 56 KUHP yang berarti bahwa ada dua orang atau lebih yang melakukan suatu tindak pidana atau dengan perkataan ada dua orangatau lebih mengambil bahagian untuk mewujudkan suatu tindak pidana. Penyertaan di dalam Undang-Undang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi yaitu Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 jo Undang-Undang Nomor 20 tahun 2001 disebut sebagai pembantuan.Dalam putusan Kasasi Mahkamah Agung Nomor : 1769 K/PID.SUS/2015 menyatakan bahwa Terdakwa I Indra Gunawan Bin Alm. Saleh tersebut tidak terbukti secara sah dan menyakinkan bersalah melakukan perbuatan sebagaimana yang didakwakan dalam semua dakwaan Penuntut Umum dan Menyatakan Terdakwa II Irfan Bin Husen telah terbukti secara sah dan meyakinkan bersalah melakukan tindak pidana “Turut Serta Melakukan Korupsi”. Majelis Hakim Judex Factie Pengadilan Tinggi/Tipikor Banda Aceh dalam memeriksa dan mengadili perkara Aquo telah salah dalam menerapkan hukum atau suatu peraturan hukum tidak diterapkan atau diterapkan tidak sebagaimana mestinya, yaitu mengenai penerapan hukum pembuktian sehingga harus dibatalkan oleh Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia.The participation is basically regulated in articles 55 and 56 of the Criminal Code, which means that there are two or more people who commit a crime or say that there are two or more people taking part to realize a crime. The participation in the Law on the Eradication of Corruption Crime namely Law Number 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law Number 20 of 2001 is referred to as assistance. In the decision of the Supreme Court Cassation Number: 1769 K / PID.SUS / 2015 stated that Defendant I Indra Gunawan Bin Alm. Saleh is not proven legally and convincingly guilty of committing an act as charged in all charges of the Public Prosecutor and Stating Defendant II Irfan Bin Husen has been proven legally and convincingly guilty of committing a criminal offense "Also Participating in Corruption". Judex Factie Judge of the High Court / Corruption Court in Banda Aceh in examining and adjudicating the case of Aquo has been wrong in applying the law or a legal regulation was not applied or applied improperly, namely regarding the application of verification law so that it must be canceled by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia.

scholarly journals Disparitas Penuntutan Pada Perkara Tindak Pidana Penganiayaan dalam Sistem Pemidanaan di Indonesia

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-78
Author(s):  
Benny Leonard Saragih ◽  
Ediwarman Ediwarman ◽  
Muaz Zul
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Internal Factors ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
The Public ◽  
Criminal Offenses ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Substantive Law

Difference in punishment or sentencing disparity is basically a natural thing because it can be said almost no case that is really the same. Disparity becomes a problem when the range of the sentence imposed differences between similar cases so large, giving rise to injustice and can give rise to suspicions in the community. Disparities in the Criminal (disparity of sentencing) is not the same as the application of criminal offenses against the same (same offense) or the criminal acts that are dangerous to be compared (offenses of comparable seriousness) without clear justification. Based on Law No. 16 of 2004 which replaced Law No. 5 of 1991 About the Prosecutor of the Republic of Indonesia is an institution in the field of prosecution of the main authority of the public prosecutor act prosecution about what is meant by the prosecution as well as the reference to the provisions of Article 1 point 7 and Article 137 Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Law of Criminal Procedure Code (Criminal Code). Research Methods in writing this thesis carried out by the method of normative law, namely analyzing and searching for answers to the problems raised by the substantive law / legal norms contained in the rules of law, the Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA), the Supreme Court Circular, and etc. Factors that cause the disparity criminal offense namely Legislation Provisions factors, internal factors and external factors.

scholarly journals PELAKSANAAN URUSAN PEMERINTAH KONKUREN DALAM PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA TANAH ULAYAT DI KABUPATEN KUANTAN SINGINGI

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rido Rikardo
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
The Public ◽  
Criminal Offenses ◽  
Case Files ◽  
Victims Of Crime ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Sense Of Justice

ABSTRAKPenelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui dan memahami bagaimana Tugas dan Kewenangan Kejaksaan dalam Penerapan Peraturan Mahkamah Agung RI nomor: 02 tahun 2012 tentang penyesuaian batasan tindak pidana ringan dan jumlah denda dalam KUHP dalam kaitannya dengan perkara tindak pidana ringan Harta Kekayaan di dalam KUHP dalam proses Pra Penuntutan (Studi Kasus Perkara Pencurian di Kejaksaan Negeri Kampar) dan Apakah kendala dan hambatan yang dihadapi Jaksa Peneliti dalam Penerapan Peraturan Mahkamah Agung RI Nomor : 02 tahun 2012 tentang penyesuaian batasan tindak pidana ringan dan jumlah denda dalam KUHP dalam Tindak Pidana Ringan lingkup Harta Kekayaan. Penelitian ini dilakukan secara sosiologis yakni berdasarkan fakta fakta yang ada dilapangan. Hasil penelitian menemukan bahwa Jaksa Penuntut Umum dalam melaksanakan tugasnya dibidang para penuntutan dalam menerima berkas perkara Penyidikan oleh Pihak Kepolisian harus dengan seksama melihat apakah suatu perkara masuk dalam kategori Tindak Pidana Ringan yang dimaksudkan Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 2 Tahun 2012 atau tidak dengan berbagai pertimbangan yang dapat dipahami oleh Penyidik Kepolisian tentu saja hal ini akan memberikan rasa keadilan baik bagi Tersangka maupun bagi korban tindak pidana dan masyarakat pada umumnya.Kata kunci: kewenangan; penyelesaian; dendaABSTRACTThis study aims to find out and understand how the Duties and Authority of the Prosecutor's Office in Applying the Republic of Indonesia Supreme Court Regulation number: 02 of 2012 concerning the adjustment of minor criminal offenses and the amount of fines in the Criminal Code in relation to cases of minor criminal offenses. (Case Study of Theft Case in the Kampar District Prosecutor's Office) and What are the obstacles and obstacles faced by the Research Prosecutor in Applying the Republic of Indonesia Supreme Court Regulation No. 02/2012 concerning the adjustment of minor criminal offenses and the amount of fines in the Criminal Code in Minor Crimes in the scope of Assets. this is done sociologically, based on facts in the field. The results of the study found that the Public Prosecutor in carrying out his duties in the field of prosecution in receiving case files Investigations by the Police must carefully see whether a case is included in the category of Minor Crimes as intended by Supreme Court Regulation Number 2 of 2012 or not with various considerations that can understood by Police Investigators, of course this will give a sense of justice both to the Suspect and to victims of crime and the community at large.Keywords: authority; settlement; fines

scholarly journals Criminal infraction as a mean of differentiating criminal responsibility and punishment

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (12) ◽  
pp. 62-67
Author(s):  
E. A. BABAYANTS ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Legislation

Discussions caused by the initiative of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the introduction of a new category of offenses – criminal infraction which can occupy an intermediate link between an administrative offense and a criminal offense – do not stop. The article reveals the concept of a criminal infraction, lists its main features, considers the feasibility of introducing this category into domestic criminal legislation. A brief analysis of the legislation of a number of foreign countries is also given, the possibility of applying such experience in Russian conditions is assessed. The conclusion is formulated that it is necessary to recognize as fair the arguments challenging the necessity of adopting the draft law in the form in which it was submitted for consideration by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Attention is drawn to the fact that in those countries where the category of criminal offense was introduced, a fundamental reform of the criminal legislation was required: a total revision of the norms of the existing criminal legislation or the adoption of a separate Code of criminal infractions (for example, in Kyrgyzstan). Based on this the draft law under consideration appears to be a half-measure, which will lead to the complication of the existing legal regulation. The most correct way to resolve the problem under consideration would be to reduce the number of minor offenses in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

scholarly journals The Concept of Freedom of Enterprise Through the Prism of Criminal Law Characteristics of Fraud

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-299
Author(s):  
Yekaterina Yakimova
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Entrepreneurial Activities

The research of issues connected with the analysis of business risks is relevant because of the problem of qualifying the actions of entrepreneurs under the fraud-related Articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Besides, the development of technologies increases the number of frauds in the digital environment, which makes it necessary to determine key features of fraudulent actions connected with the changes in the economic organization of the society connected with the digital transformation of some branches of the world economy in general and Russian economy in particular, of the social sphere, and of the specifics of public administration of some areas of life. The responsiveness of lawmakers manifested in amending a group of Articles in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation regarding the legal characteristics of fraud, shows that there are some problems in the legislative regulation of this sphere. The author believes that they are caused by an attempt to assess the degree of freedom of enterprise and the degree of involvement of each side of legal relations in the risk of investment. The analysis of legislation, the law enforcement practice, statistical data give reason to believe that most of the problems of legislative understanding of fraud in entrepreneurship are not connected with contradictions in the legal regulation, but rather with the drawbacks of the law enforcement practice, the prevalence of repressive methodology in classifying the actions of entrepreneurs and the inner conviction of the law enforcement employees that entrepreneurs intentionally strive to obtain negative results in any, and primarily entrepreneurial, activities. The author argues that further improvement of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation will not yield any tangible results, which testifies to a considerable transformation of the fraud-related Articles in the last 15 years. Changes in the practice of enforcement of the criminal law’s articles regarding fraud are only possible after the principles of such work are worked out by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, who at present pays much attention to this issue, although some clauses of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation require further analysis and improvement.

PERANAN KEJAKSAAN DALAM IMPLEMENTASI PENEGAKAN HUKUM PERATURAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG RI NOMOR: 02 TAHUN 2012 TENTANG PENYESUAIAN BATASAN TINDAK PIDANA RINGAN DAN JUMLAH DENDA DALAM KUHP TERHADAP PENYELESAIAN TINDAK PIDANA HARTA KEKAYAAN (DALAM SISTEM PERADILAN PIDANA DI INDONESIA)

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agung Irawan
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Legal Authority ◽  
The Public ◽  
Criminal Offenses ◽  
Case Files ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Sense Of Justice

ABSTRAKPenelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui dan memahami bagaimana Tugas dan Kewenangan Kejaksaan dalam Penerapan Peraturan Mahkamah Agung RI nomor: 02 tahun 2012 tentang penyesuaian batasan tindak pidana ringan dan jumlah denda dalam KUHP dalam kaitannya dengan perkara tindak pidana ringan Harta Kekayaan di dalam KUHP dalam proses Pra Penuntutan (Studi Kasus Perkara Pencurian di Kejaksaan Negeri Kampar) dan Apakah kendala dan hambatan yang dihadapi Jaksa Peneliti dalam Penerapan Peraturan Mahkamah Agung RI Nomor: 02 tahun 2012 tentang penyesuaian batasan tindak pidana ringan dan jumlah denda dalam KUHP dalam Tindak Pidana Ringan lingkup Harta Kekayaan.penelitian ini dilakukan secara sosiologis yakni berdasarkan fakta fakta yang aad dilapangan. Hasil penelitian menemukan bahwa Jaksa Penuntut Umum dalam melaksanakan tugasnya dibidang para penuntutan dalam menerima berkas perkara Penyidikan oleh Pihak Kepolisian harus dengan seksama melihat apakah suatu perkara masuk dalam kategori Tindak Pidana Ringan yang dimaksudkan Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 2 Tahun 2012 atau tidak dengan berbagai pertimbangan yang dapat dipahami oleh Penyidik Kepolisian tentu saja hal ini akan memberikan rasa keadilan baik bagi Tersangka maupun bagi korban tindak pidana dan masyarakat pada umumnya. Kata kunci: kewenangan; penyelesaian; dendaABSTRACTThis study aims to find out and understand how the Duties and Authority of the Prosecutor's Office in Applying the Republic of Indonesia Supreme Court Regulation number: 02 of 2012 concerning the adjustment of minor criminal offenses and the amount of fines in the Criminal Code in relation to cases of minor criminal offenses. (Case Study of Theft Case in the Kampar District Prosecutor's Office) and What are the obstacles and obstacles faced by the Research Prosecutor in Applying the Republic of Indonesia Supreme Court Regulation No. 02/2012 concerning the adjustment of minor criminal offenses and the amount of fines in the Criminal Code in Minor Crimes in the scope of Assets. this is done sociologically, based on facts in the field. The results of the study found that the Public Prosecutor in carrying out his duties in the field of prosecution in receiving case files Investigations by the Police must carefully see whether a case is included in the category of Minor Crimes as intended by Supreme Court Regulation Number 2 of 2012 or not with various considerations that can understood by Police Investigators, of course this will give a sense of justice both to the Suspect and to victims of crime and the community at large.Keywords: legal authority; settlement; fines

scholarly journals PEMIDANAAN TERHADAP PERBUATAN MENGHILANGKAN MAYAT YANG DILAKUKAN ANAK (STUDI TERHADAP PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG NO. 774K / PID.SUS / 2015)

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 636
Author(s):  
Heppi Florensia ◽  
Mety Rahmawati
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
District Court ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Supreme Court Ruling ◽  
The Public ◽  
Criminal Offenses ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Criminalization of the offender especially in the perpetrators of children under age is as a sanction that tells implied to someone who performs acts meet certain conditions. Often in prosecuting a criminal case the Public Prosecutor is wrong in deciding what articles should be imposed on the perpetrator. As one case of Supreme Court verdict No.774K/PID.SUS/2015 with 16-year-old defendant Dicky Pranata prosecuted by the Prosecutor with Article 340 of the Penal Code juncto Article 56 of the Criminal Code is a criminal act of premeditated murder, in which the elements of Article 340 of the Criminal Code are not fulfilled the defendant's self but the existence of other crimes Article 181 of the Criminal Code of disappearance committed by the defendant. The defendant was sentenced to 10 years in prison at the District Court, while the defendant was released from the sentence of the Court of Appeal and Cassation. The problem in this research is whether the act of the perpetrator fulfills the elements in Article 340 juncto Article 56 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code juncto Article 1 paragraph (3) SPPA Act and Article 181 of the Criminal Code? How to base criminal offenses in the Supreme Court ruling case No.774K/PID.SUS/2015? The researcher examines the problem with normative juridical method. Based on the analysis result that the defendant is not proven to commit element of crime Article 340 KUHP, but the existence of criminal act Article 181 of Criminal Code which has been done by defendant.

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 KAJIAN HUKUM KEWENANGAN PENYELIDIKAN ANTARA KEPOLISIAN, KPK DALAM PEMBERANTASAN PIDANA KORUPSI DARI KELEMBAGAAN NEGARA

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sumiaty Adelina Hutabarat
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right ◽  
National Police ◽  
The Relationship

<p>There are two law enforcement agencies combating corruption, namely the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) and the Police, having the same authority, but in implementing authority there are differences, for example in the application of laws that govern the two institutions.The problem that becomes the study of this research is how the problem of the existence of the KPK as an institution to eradicate corruption has the authority regulated in RI Law No. 30 of 2002 concerning the Corruption Eradication Commission, whose authority lies with the Police regulated in RI Law No. 2 of 2002 concerning the National Police of the Republic of Indonesia which refers to the Criminal Code The results of the study showed that the resolution of the dispute between the Police and the Corruption Eradication Commission in the investigation of corruption was carried out by coordinating the Corruption Eradication Commission and the Police in Corruption Criminal Investigations. Law number 30 of 2002 concerning the Corruption Eradication Commission regulates the relationship between the performance of the KPK and the Police regarding investigations, investigations and prosecutions.Settlement of authority disputes between the Police and the KPK should be the authority of the Supreme Court, due to judicial review under the Supreme Court Law. The right to test the law is the application of a balanced and balanced government. The Corruption Eradication Commission was formed by the Law 30/2002 whereas the Indonesian Police was formed by the 1945 Constitution, article 30 paragraph 4.</p><p><strong>Keywords : <em>Authority, investigation, KPK</em></strong></p><p><strong> </strong></p>

scholarly journals ANALISIS PUTUSAN NOMOR 574K/PID.SUS/2018 MENGENAI PELANGGARAN PASAL 27 AYAT (1) UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 11 TAHUN 2008 TENTANG INFORMASI DAN TRANSAKSI ELEKTRONIK

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 1335
Author(s):  
Pelemon Siagian ◽  
Sugandi Ishak
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
General Public ◽  
District Court ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
The Public ◽  
Electronic Transactions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law

Baiq Nuril Maknun is accused of violating Article 27 paragraph (1) of Law Number 11 Year 2008 concerning Information and Electronic Transactions (UU ITE). In the Mataram District Court found not proven guilty, the Public Prosecutor filed an appeal with Decision Number 574K / Pid. Sus / 2018 and the Supreme Court (MA) sentenced him guilty to Baiq Nuril Maknun with 6 month prisons sentence and a Rp. 500 million. Baiq Nuril Maknun then submitted a Review (PK) with Decision Number 83PK / Pid.Sus / 2019 and the Supreme Court rejected the PK proposed by Baiq Nuril Maknun. Method research used in writing this thesis is normative legal research. The results showed that Baiq Nuril Maknun submitted an amnesty request to President Joko Widodo and was granted, Baiq Nuril Maknun was free from the snares of the law. Submission of amnesty must be selective and for certain cases that are felt by the general public, the court's decision must be able to reflect justice because it is in accordance with the Judicial Act and the Supreme Court, and judges are required to explore the values of justice in society.

scholarly journals Penerapan Hukum Materil terhadap Pelaku Pembunuhan dengan Unsur Penyertaan (Studi Kasus Putusan Mari No. 966 k/pid/2014)

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-28
Author(s):  
Elfirda Ade Putri
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Special Form ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Witness Statements

Murder accompanied by inclusion or carried out jointly is a special form of murder that incriminates the perpetrators. Basically, judges 'considerations in deciding cases, especially with murder cases, are sometimes not in accordance with applicable law, apart from that the sentence imposed is sometimes not in accordance with the perpetrators' actions, so that justice is not obtained, especially for the injured parties. There are differences in sentencing in each court, even though prior to sentencing, the judge has considered the same juridical considerations from each court level, whether it consists of indictments of the public prosecutor, defendant's statements, witness statements, witness statements, evidence and articles of law criminal. The application of material law by the Public Prosecutor in the Supreme Court Decision number 966 K / Pid / 2014 is not right. The public prosecutor uses the subsidair indictment using Article 338 paragraph (1) jo Article 55 of the Criminal Code. Public prosecutor did not ensnare the defendant Article Number 340 of the Indonesian Criminal Code, where the criminal act committed by the defendant contained an element of "planning".

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document