scholarly journals Separate Filing (Splitsing) In Criminal Case Management

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 461
Author(s):  
Hidayat Abdulah
Keyword(s):  
Case Management ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Case File ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Court Process

In the implementation of the criminal case handling a lot of things that can be done to perfect evidence is the failure by one of them is doing a separate filing (splitsing). In Article 142 Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that the public prosecutor has the authority to separate docket (splitsing) against each defendant if found lacking evidence and testimony, as well as other matters that are not included in the provisions of Article 141 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Separation of the case must be based on solely the purpose of examination. That's what makes the public prosecutor has the authority to determine the case file should be separated (splitsing) or not. The purpose for doing the separation of the case file (splitsing) is to facilitate the enforcement of the prosecutor when the court process, to strengthen the evidence for lack of evidence when the process of verification, then a criminal offense committed by the offender more than one and the same time one of these actors into the search list (DPO) which allow splitsing.Keywords: Separate Filing; The Criminal Case.

scholarly journals Gugurnya Hak Menuntut Terhadap Korporasi Akibat Pailit

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Audaraziq Ismail ◽  
Eva Achjani Zulfa ◽  
Yutcesyam Yutcesyam ◽  
Fatiatulo Lazira
Keyword(s):  
Limited Liability ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
District Court ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Bankruptcy Code

Prosecution is basically an action by the public prosecutor to delegate a criminal case to the competent District Court so that it is examined and decided by a judge in a court session. With regard to prosecution, Article 109 of the Criminal Procedure Code states that there are 3 reasons for stopping prosecution, namely that an event is not a criminal act, there is not enough evidence collected by investigators to prove the fulfillment of the elements in a criminal act and for the sake of law. The Criminal Code, First, with regard to the application of the principle of ne bis in idem. Second, if the Defendant dies, Third, Expires, Fourth, Settlement outside the court, Article 82 of the Criminal Code has described if an offense is threatened with a fine only, then prosecution can be avoided by paying the maximum fine directly. Against corporations, prosecution is limited by a number of provisions, in this case also including when the corporation is bankrupt. That as a result, if the entire corporate assets are included in the bankruptcy code, there will be a transfer of corporate licenses and an impact on the liquidation process. Thus, based on the provisions of Article 142 paragraph (1) of Law no. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies, the corporation is dissolved. Thus, the prosecution of the bankrupt corporation can be dropped.

scholarly journals TANGGUNG JAWAB HUKUM PENYIDIK KEPOLISIAN TERHADAP BARANG BUKTI YANG KURANG LENGKAP

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 14
Author(s):  
Ni Made Trisna Dewi
Keyword(s):  
Legal Theory ◽  
Scientific Paper ◽  
Legal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Case File ◽  
The Public ◽  
Preliminary Examination ◽  
Procedure Code

<p><em>Examination of cases before the trial, as well as in the preliminary examination, there are many problems related to evidence. Although evidence has an important role in a criminal case, it is not that the presence of evidence is absolutely necessary in a criminal case. Where the judge in making a decision does not always rely on evidence because it only happens case by case, or it can be said that not all cases can be resolved just because of the evidence. The formulation of the problem raised in this study is what is the legal basis for the police against incomplete evidence and what is the legal responsibility of the police for incomplete evidence. This type of research is empirical legal research. This research uses an approach that examines the prevailing laws and regulations, legal theory, and can be in the form of scholars' opinions related to problems in this scientific paper, namely the legal responsibility of the police for incomplete evidence. The conclusion of this research is that the legal basis of the police for incomplete evidence is Article 110 paragraph (2) and (3) and Article 138 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code where the Public Prosecutor returns the case file to the investigator to complete the case file concerned. In returning the case file, the Public Prosecutor is also required to provide instructions regarding the incompleteness of the case file, both regarding the completeness of the case file clearly and clearly so that it can be understood by the Investigator.</em></p><p><strong>Keywords</strong>: <em>Responsibility, police, incomplete evidence</em></p>

scholarly journals Analisis Hukum Terhadap Penggabungan Dan Pemisahan Perkara Pidana Dalam Surat Dakwaan Penuntut Umum

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 360-368
Author(s):  
Christina Mahdalena Saragih ◽  
Sonya Airini Batubara ◽  
Martin Johan Napitupulu ◽  
Nico Iryanto Sihombing ◽  
Novita Wanrelin Gultom
Keyword(s):  
Research Methods ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
General Knowledge ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Secondary Research ◽  
Case File ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedure Code

This article aims to analyze the consideration of the public prosecutor in merging and separating indictments for several criminal cases and to find out the obstacles of the public prosecutor in merging and separating indictments against several criminal cases. The research used is normative juridical research. With secondary research methods, namely secondary legal materials, which consist of books and articles related to research (both in the form of newspapers, magazines, journals, and other writings). The data obtained are then analyzed qualitatively by describing and describing the data and facts resulting from a research in the field with an interpretation, evaluation, and general knowledge. In the results of this study, the merger of indictments against several criminal cases is Article 141 of the Criminal Procedure Code which reads: "Public prosecutors can merge cases and make them into one indictment". Meanwhile, for the separation of the indictment, there is Article 142 of the Criminal Procedure Code which reads: "In the event that the Public Prosecutor receives a case file containing several criminal acts committed by several suspects which are not included in the provisions of Article 141"

scholarly journals PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM TERHADAP CALON ADVOKAT YANG SEDANG MAGANG PADA KANTOR HUKUM BERDASARKAN UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 18 TAHUN 2003 TENTANG ADVOKAT

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1104-1124
Author(s):  
Martin Luter Ndaparoka
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Legal Consequences

The subject matter of the study of the effect of the law on the judge's decision to ignore the litis contestatio in the criminal acts of corruption, with the problem of how the legal position of the indictment in the judicial process against a criminal act of corruption and what the legal consequences if the judge's decision on a crime occurred ignore litis contestatio. Approach of concepts and case approach, the following conclusions are obtained: Legal Status The indictment in a criminal case of corruption which is one of the most fundamental principles in the criminal process is the necessity of making an indictment and the judge may only decide on the basis of the facts, less or more. The indictment is viewed as litis contestation. The indictment is the basis for the judge in examining and adjudicating a criminal case and the Judge's Decision on a case involving STA in a criminal act of corruption in Judge Consideration based solely on facts in the hearing does not comply with the provisions of article 182 paragraph (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, If the provisions of the articles charged by the Public Prosecutor are not legally and convincingly proven, the Judge shall award the decision or the vrijspraak as determined in Article 191 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and if not in accordance with Article 197 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code then the verdict will be null and void.

scholarly journals Penyitaan Barang Bukti Tindak Pidana pada Tingkat Pemeriksaan Persidangan

PLENO JURE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-57
Author(s):  
Muhammad Ibnu Fajar Rahim ◽  
Sitti Arkanul Pascahyati Rahim ◽  
Muhammad Aman Hijrah Akbar Rahim ◽  
Ahmad Ranuwirawan Rahim ◽  
Abdul Rahim
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Arguments

Penyitaan terhadap barang bukti sebagai coraborating evidence merupakan upaya paksa untuk memperkuat pembuktian dakwaan penuntut umum di persidangan. Realitasnya, masih terdapat barang bukti yang relevan dengan pembuktian dakwaan namun baru terungkap di persidangan dan belum dilakukan penyitaan. Ketentuan Pasal 38 ayat (1) KUHAP yang menegaskan penyitaan hanya dilakukan pada tingkat penyidikan oleh penyidik yang menjadikan penuntut umum kesulitan ketika berhadapan dengan realitas tersebut. Artikel ini berupaya menegaskan adanya kewenangan penuntut umum untuk melakukan penyitaan barang bukti tindak pidana pada tingkat pemeriksaan persidangan. Legal argumentasi penyitaan oleh penuntut umum ditemukan dalam PERJA 36/2011 maupun KMA 32/2006 sebagai bagian dari peraturan perundangan-undangan.  AbstractConfiscation of evidence as coraborating evidence is a forced effort to strengthen the evidence of the public prosecutor's charges at the trial. In reality, there is still evidence that is relevant to the indictment, but it has only been revealed at court and has not been confiscated. The provisions of Article 38 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code which confirms confiscation are only carried out at the level of investigation by investigators which makes the public prosecutor difficult when dealing with this reality. This article seeks to emphasize the authority of the public prosecutor to confiscate evidence of a criminal offense at the trial examination level. Legal arguments for confiscation by the public prosecutor are found in PERJA 36/2011 and KMA 32/2006 as part of the legislation.

scholarly journals Implementation of Extraordinary Review (Pk) For the Public Prosecutors after the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 33/Puu-Xiv/2016

2021 ◽  
Vol 04 (06) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rahmadianto Andra ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legal Remedies ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Right

The background of this paper is inspired and triggered to observe and study the legal uncertainty between the public prosecutor and the convict/his heirs regarding the authority to submit a PK Application as regulated in Article 263 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The article states "the right of the public prosecutor" to apply for a PK application. However, what is expected by the Petitioner's wife is that Article 263 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code can be interpreted in this way, "PK applications can only be filed by the convicted person or their heirs". This condition was exacerbated by the issuance of the Constitutional Court decision Number 33/PUU-XIV/ 2016 regarding "the right of the public prosecutor to file a PK application in a criminal case". This study aims to determine the application of extraordinary legal remedies by the public prosecutor and the implications of implementing these extraordinary remedies. The research method used is normative legal research. The results showed the application of extraordinary PK legal remedies for the public prosecutor after the Constitutional Court decision Number 33/PUU-XIV/2016, had direct implications for the Petitioner and his family. This implication is detrimental to the Petitioners' constitutional rights based on Article 28G of the 1945 Constitution because the protection of personal, family, honor and dignity has clearly been lost. It is better if the Constitutional Court reaffirms the legal principles in the article through constitutional interpretation which is an integral part that is not separate from the article in question and is able to provide fair legal certainty.

scholarly journals Analisis Yuridis Putusan Bebas terhadap Kasus Tindak Pidana Pembunuhan

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 399-411
Author(s):  
Ramot Lumbantoruan
Keyword(s):  
Research Method ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Judicial Role

The purpose of this research is to describe the legal arrangements regarding the Free Verdict according to positive legal provisions, the Judicial role of the Judge in deciding a case and Juridical Analysis of a conviction for a murder crime (Study of Judgment Number 423 / Pid / 2008 PN. South Jakarta. This research method is normative juridical research.The nature of this research is descriptive analysis, which is a method used to describe a condition or condition that is happening or ongoing in order to provide as much data as possible about the object of research so as to explore things that are ideal, then analyzed based on legal theory or applicable laws and regulations.Results of this study, first, the legal arrangements regarding the acquittal according to positive legal provisions is to look at Article 191 Paragraph (1), paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code specifically also provides an understanding that reinforces its role law about being free from all lawsuits. Second, the role of judges legally in deciding a case in the decision of Case Decision Number 423 / Pid / 2008 / PN. South Jakarta is a judge must pay attention to the interests of various parties, both the interests of the defendant, witnesses, and the interests of the Public Prosecutor.

scholarly journals Is a public procesutor's investigation more effective than a judicial investigation?

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 1183-1202
Author(s):  
Snežana Brkić
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Research ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
The Other ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Judicial Investigation ◽  
Injured Party ◽  
Novi Sad

This paper is the result of a mini empirical research on the duration of judicial and public prosecutorial investigations before the High Court in Novi Sad. A total of 100 cases were analyzed, of which 50 cases from 2008 and 50 cases from 2015 and 2016. The first 50 cases were conducted during the validity of the Criminal Procedure code from 2001, while the other 50 cases were conducted during the validity of the Criminal Procedure Code from 2011. In order for the result to be as comparable as possible, we tried to have the same structure of criminal acts represented in both groupes. The author came to the conclusion that a prosecutorial investigation is not faster than a judicial investigation. The search for the suspect, the search for the injured party, the impediment of the lawer, the strike of the lawers, the preoccupation of the public prosecutor, etc. contributed to the somewhat longer duration of the public prosecutorial investigation.

scholarly journals Juridical Analysis of the Acquittal in a Murder Crime

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 29-33
Author(s):  
Chairul Nopriansyah
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court

The judge plays an important role in the judiciary because the judge has the authority to examine, hear and decide on a case so that he is obliged to look for values ​​of justice in the application of progressive and responsive laws, so the judge in issuing decisions must pay attention to various considerations. Article 183 of the Criminal Procedure Code contains several elements of judges' considerations when making decisions. In the case of an acquittal, the judge needs carefulness and carefulness to consider so that a matter must be truly convincing. This research is a doctrinal research method that is taking the opinions of experts regarding free decisions and through legal products in the form of legislation and judges' decisions. The conclusion of this paper is First, the basic consideration of the judge in passing a free verdict (vrijspraak) is not fulfilling the minimum limit of evidence by the public prosecutor so that the judge will release the defendant because the evidence that can blame the defendant is insufficient and based on the elaboration of the writer above, the Supreme Court allows legal efforts to overturn an acquittal (vrijspraak) namely an appeal on an acquittal, but not all verdicts requested for appeal are always accepted by the Supreme Court.

scholarly journals Relationship Between the Police and the Prosecutor’s Office in Individual European Countries

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Miroslav Janjić
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
The Public ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Republic

One of the main characteristics of the investigation in Germany is that the public prosecutor is in charge of investigation and the role of the police mainly depends on whether and to what extent the public prosecutor will entrust them with undertaking investigative actions. France has retained the division into inquests and investigation, as well as a powerful investigative judge. When a formal investigation is optional (it is obligatory only in the event of crimes) and is not conducted, inquests are the only form of preliminary proceedings. Preliminary investigations (inquests) are conducted by the judicial police, at the request of a public prosecutor or ex officio. The Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Italy, which was adopted in 1988 and which came into force in 1989, with its subsequent amendments, is significant, among other things, for introducing the accusatory model of criminal procedure instead of the inquisitorial one included in the Criminal Procedure Code of 1930 that was revoked when the new Criminal Procedure Code came into force.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document