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 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".

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.

scholarly journals Kajian Yuridis Putusan Mahkamah Agung dalam Penyelesaian Sengketa Pada Perusahaan Leasing Dengan Badan Penyelesaian Sengketa Konsumen

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Agustine Azizah
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
District Court ◽  
Literature Study ◽  
Court Judge ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Finance Company

The purpose of this study for reviewed the dispute resolution between the finance company and the consumer decided by BPSK in the case of Supreme Court Decision Number 210 K/Pdt.Sus-BPSK/2015 and examine the consideration of the Supreme Court Judge stating that BPSK is not authorized to decide case in between consumer financing companies.This research is normative descriptive who use secondary data and collecting data use literature study. Data analysis use interactive model.The result of the research indicates that the Supreme Court Decision Number 210 K/Pdt.Sus- BPSK/2015 in the case of special dispute on consumer dispute between First Indo American Leasing Branch Bandung ("First Indo Finance") with BPSK Bandung and Neva Rahmansyah, SE stated that The Supreme Court rejected the appeal from the First Appeal Applicant of PT First Indo American Leasing Bandung ("First Indo Finance") and amended the decision of Bandung District Court Number 461/Pdt.G/2014/PN Bdg. dated December 24, 2014 so that it is clear that the Supreme Court accepted the exception of the petitioners and stated that BPSK is not authorized to examine and adjudicate the case and to punish the Cassation Applicant Applicant to pay the court fee in the appeal level stipulated at Rp 500,000 (five hundred thousand rupiahs). Consideration of the Supreme Court Judge stating that BPSK is not authorized to  decide the case in the case between the finance company and the consumer because the legal relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant constitutes a joint financing agreement with the fiduciary transfer of property, which implements civil law relationships and does not include consumer disputes as provided in the Act Number 8 Year 1999 on Consumer Protection so that the dispute arising from the implementation of the consumer financing agreement is a dispute agreement which is the authority of the District Court.  

scholarly journals Implementation of Parate Executie Object of Liability

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Redi Res
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
District Court ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Ratio Decidendi

Parate executive is the primary purpose of establishing Law Number 4 of 1996 concerning Mortgage Rights to provide solid legal protection for creditors holding mortgage objects. The easy and inexpensive execution process should make the parate executive the leading choice for creditors in auctioning mortgage objects if the debtor defaults. However, in reality, the parate execution could not be carried out properly because of the Supreme Court Decision No. 3210 K/Pdt/1984, in which one of the ratio decidendi in it that the public auction conducted by the Bandung KPKNL is invalid, and this is also supported by book II of the Supreme Court's guidelines which requires fiat execution from the District Court. This paper will explain how the two conflicting legal bases will impact the implementation of parate executives in the field. Keywords: Parate Executie;  Mortgage; Land.

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 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 Peran Notaris/PPAT Dalam Pembuatan Akta Pembagian Harta Warisan Terhadap Ahli Waris Yang Berbeda Agama

Jurnal Akta ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 105
Author(s):  
Diah Ragil Kusuma ◽  
Munsharif Abdul Chalim
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Religious Orders ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Will

ABSTRAKKewajiban dalam melaksanakan wasiat wajibah itu bersifat Qadhai, disini dapat diartikan bahwa tidak hanya sebagai tanggung jawab seseorang dalam melaksanakan perintah agama, namun wasiat wajibah tersebut dapat dipaksakan apabila ia lalai dalam melaksanakannya karena sudah menyangkut kepentingan umum.Peran notaris dalam membuat akta pembagian harta waris terhadap ahli waris non muslim yakni dengan membuatkan Akta Keterangan Waris yang di dalamnya menjelaskan pemberiannya melalui wasiat wajibah. Demikian pula yang menjadi landasan yuridis atas pemberian wasiat wajibah kepada ahli waris non muslim oleh Putusan Mahkamah Agung RI Nomor: 368 K/AG/1995, tanggal 16 Juli 1998 yang telah menetapkan bahwa seorang anak perempuan yang beragama Nasrani berhak pula mendapat harta warisan pewaris, tidak melalui warisan melainkan melalui wasiat wajibah. Dan besar perolehannya adalah sama dengan bagian seorang anak perempuan, bukan 1/3 dari harta warisan dan bukan pula ¾ bagian dari perolehan anak perempuan pewaris. Selanjutnya Putusan Mahakamah Agung RI Nomor: 51 K/AG/1999, tanggal 29 September 1999 yang telah memberikan pertimbangan: “Menimbang, bahwa namun dengan demikian Mahkamah Agung berpendapat bahwa putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Agama Yogyakarta harus diperbaiki, karena seharusnya Pengadilan Tinggi Agama Yogyakarta memperbaiki amar putusan Pengadilan Agama Yogyakarta mengenai ahli waris non muslim, mereka berhak mendapat warisan melalui wasiat wajibah yang kadar bagiannya sama dengan bagian ahli waris muslim.”Kata Kunci : Notaris, Wasiat Wajibah, Non Muslim.ABSTRACTObligation in carrying out the mandate is Qadhai, here it can be interpreted that not only as a person's responsibility in carrying out religious orders, but the will is compulsory if he neglects in carrying it out because it is related to the public interest.Notary's role in making the deed of dividing the heirs against non-Muslim heirs by making the Deed of Inheritance Statement which in it explains its grant through the mandatory testament. Likewise, the juridical basis for the provision of a mandatory will to non-Muslim heirs by the Supreme Court Decision Number 368 K / AG / 1995, dated July 16, 1998 which has stipulated that a Christian girl is entitled to also get the inheritance, not through inheritance but through a mandatory will. And the gains are equal to the share of a daughter, not 1/3 of the estate and not the part of the acquisition of the daughter of the testator. Furthermore, the Supreme Court Decision Number 51 / K / 1999 dated 29 September 1999 has given consideration: "Considering that, however, the Supreme Court is of the opinion that the decision of the Yogyakarta High Religious Court must be improved, since the Religious High Court of Yogyakarta should have improved the amar the decision of the Religious Court of Yogyakarta concerning the non-Muslim heirs, they are entitled to inheritance through a mandatory testament whose content is equal to that of the Muslim heirs".Keyword : Notary, Mandatory Testament, Non-Muslim.

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.

Leading Decisions of the Supreme Court of Israel and Extracts of the Judgment

1997 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 754-802 ◽  
Author(s):  
Omi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
District Court ◽  
Conditional Release ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
State Of Israel

Ganimat v. The State of Israel (1995) 49(iv) P.D. 589.The appellant was indicted in the Jerusalem Magistrate Court for two incidents of car theft. His detention was requested on the grounds that he posed a “danger to society”. The Magistrate Court agreed to his arrest, holding that a custom has been established whereby custody may be justified in crimes which have become “a nationwide scourge”, including car theft. The District Court rejected the appeal. The appellant was granted permission to appeal the decision in the Supreme Court (decision of Dorner J. and Barak J.; Cheshin J. dissenting) and his conditional release was ordered. However, it was decided to hold Special Proceedings in order to discuss some of the important issues raised by the case. The principal constitutional question raised by the case was whether the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty influences the interpretation of the existing law, in the present case, the law of arrest as regulated by the Law of Criminal Procedure.

scholarly journals THE DUALISM OF THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISIONS ON THE POSITION OF NON-MARITAL CHILD

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 228
Author(s):  
Nurhadi Nurhadi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Islamic Law ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Literature Study ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
Religious Courts ◽  
Unmarried Child

Since the birth of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 46/PUU-VIII/2010, the legal experts have discussed the positions of marriage children through articles, papers, books and seminars, pros and cons when interpreting the non-marital child, judges also gave birth to many interpretations. The Supreme Court (MA) has two views in adjudicating the marriage case, Supreme Court Decision Number 329 K/AG/2014 states that the ratification of an unmarried child is not a jurisdiction of the Religious Courts, whereas in Decision of Supreme Court Number 597 K/AG/2015 states that the non-marital children are legitimate even though the marriage of their parents only carries out marriage under Islamic law. The formulation of the problem is how the criteria of marital legitimacy in Indonesia? How is the outsider interpretation of the two Supreme Court decisions? The research method used is literature study, with the type of normative legal research, which is descriptive analytical. The conclusion is that in Supreme Court Decision Number 329 K/AG/2014 considered the marriage to be legitimately religious, but because it is not recorded so that the marriage does not get the certainty and protection of the law, consequently the child born from the marriage is not a legal child, whereas in Decision Number 597 K/AG/2015 The Supreme Court considers that although the marriage is not recorded, the child born from the marriage must still have legal certainty and protection so that the child is considered a legal child.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document