scholarly journals ANALISA PEMBELIAN BARANG UNDERPRICED SEBAGI BENTUK KESALAHAN DELIK PENADAHAN: TINJAUAN YURIDIS YURISPRUDENSI MAHKAMAH AGUNG NOMOR 2/YUR/PID/2018

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 106
Author(s):  
Vina Putri Salim ◽  
Tsamara Probo Ningrum ◽  
Risma Cahya Yudita Pratama ◽  
Nur Fadilah

The purpose of this article is to find out the application of Supreme Court Jurisprudence Number 2 / Yur / Pid / 2018 which provides legal rules related to underpriced purchases as the fulfillment of the element "should be suspected that it was obtained from criminal offenses" in the offense. This research is legal research with a statutory approach and conceptual approach. The research results obtained are the application of the new legal rules in the Supreme Court Jurisprudence Number 2 / Yur / Pid / 2018 to the element of negligence in the offense delimitation in Article 480 of the Criminal Code. are required by law and do not exercise caution as required by law which is an element of negligence. In the element of not making guesses as required by law, it is related to the inner attitude of society in general, wherein movable objects the authorities are considered as the owner and society, in general, cannot know the market price of each movable object. This is different from immovable objects, where the authorities are not always the owners, where ownership is generally based on certificates so that the general public can know the price of the immovable object. In its development, registered and unregistered objects were born, whereas, in registered objects, the general public could find out the price of these registered objects, because ownership of these registered objects could be known publicly. About not taking the precautions required by law, which must be seen whether there is a behavior of the defendant to take preventive measures related to the origin of the goods, where when the buyer/seller has taken precautionary measures, it can be said that the buyer/seller has done the duty to be careful so that it cannot be said that negligence has occurred.

Author(s):  
Oleksandra Skok ◽  

The statistics of the Prosecutor General's Office on registered criminal offenses in the form of serious crimes for 2020 and 2021 were reviewed. Based on this, the number of serious crimes registered by the National Police of Ukraine during the reporting periods was determined. The provisions of the current Criminal Code of Ukraine, the Criminal-Executive Code of Ukraine, the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court No 7 of October 24, 2003 are analyzed, as well as some scientific positions of domestic scientists Knyzhenko O. O are taken into account. and Berezhnyuk V. M In addition, a review of the case law of the Supreme Court of Cassation on sentencing was studied. A thorough criminal-legal analysis of the sanctions of the articles of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in the part of punishments established for the category of serious crimes was carried out. Based on the analysis, it was determined which main and additional punishments are regulated in the sanctions of the articles of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of Ukraine for the investigated category of crimes. The quantitative and qualitative indicator of sanctions for serious crimes has been determined, which include: imprisonment for a definite term; punishments alternative to imprisonment; additional penalties. Legislative and doctrinal provisions on punishments in the form of imprisonment for a definite term, restriction of liberty, fine, correctional labor, arrest are considered. The judicial practice of Ukraine in the part of certain issues related to the execution of a penalty in the form of a fine and the replacement of a penalty in the form of a fine with a penalty in the form of correctional labor is analyzed. It is established that the Criminal Code of Ukraine, in the sanctions of the articles, provides for the application to a person who has committed a serious crime, punishment in the form of imprisonment, restriction of liberty, fine, correctional labor, arrest - as the main punishment. The range of additional punishments is defined, which determine: confiscation of property, deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities and a fine.


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-78
Author(s):  
Benny Leonard Saragih ◽  
Ediwarman Ediwarman ◽  
Muaz Zul

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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 459
Author(s):  
Budi Suhariyanto

Realitas pemberantasan tindak pidana korporasi di Indonesia banyak mengalami kendala, termasuk dalam perkara korupsi. Ketiadaan yurisprudensi yang bisa dijadikan pedoman bagi penegak hukum dan hakim menjadi persoalan yang mendasar dalam mengatasi kegalauan yang selama ini ada.Menarik dipermasalahkan yaitu bagaimanakah urgensi pembangunan yurisprudensi pemidanaan korporasi Pelaku korupsi untuk efektivitas penegakan hukum di Indonesia? Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mendorong Mahkamah Agung menginisiasi pembentukan yurisprudensi pemidanaan korporasiPelaku korupsi. Jika telah ditetapkan sebagai yurisprudensi dapat berguna sebagai inspirasi dan dipedomani oleh penegak hukum dan hakim. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, pendekatan konseptual dan pendekatankasus. Hasil pembahasan mengemukakan bahwa beberapa putusan pemidanaan terhadap korporasi Pelaku korupsi memiliki kaidah hukum baru yang perlu mendapatkan perhatian penegak hukum dan hakim Pengadilan Tipikor. Kaidah hukum baru tersebut perlu dipertimbangkan untuk dijadikan yurisprudensi sehingga bisa menjadi solusi atas kendala efektivitas pemberantasan korupsi korporasi yang selama ini ada. Mengingat persyaratan yurisprudensi pemidanaan korporasi Pelaku korupsi telah terpenuhi maka sesegera mungkin dapat dimulai proses dan tahapannya oleh Mahkamah Agung.The reality of the eradication of corporate crime in Indonesia has many obstacles, including in corruption cases. The absence of jurisprudence that can be used as a guide for law enforcers and judges to be a fundamental problem in overcoming the turmoil that has been there. Interest in question is how urgency of jurisprudence development corporations corruption Actors of corruption for the effectiveness of law enforcement in Indonesia? The purpose of this study is to encourage the Supreme Court to initiate the formation of corporate criminal prosecution jurisprudence. If it has been established as jurisprudence can be useful as an inspiration and guided by law enforcement and judges. This research uses normative research method with the approach of legislation, conceptual approach and approach of case. The results of the argument suggest that some criminal verdicts against corporations Perpetrators of corruption have new legal rules that need to get the attention of law enforcers and judges of the Corruption Court. The new law rules need to be considered for jurisprudence so that it can be a solution to the obstacles to the effectiveness of corruption eradication of corporations that have been there. In view of the requirements of corporations punishment lawsuit The perpetrators of corruption have been fulfilled as soon as possible can begin the process and its stages by the Supreme Court.


Author(s):  
D. Ptaschenko

The Article 1 of the Constitution of Ukraine regulates: Ukraine is a sovereign and independent, democratic, social, legal state. One of the destabilizing factors in building the rule of law is the commission of criminal offenses by organized criminal groups. Due to the changes in the criminal legislation during the last two years, the criminal law norms have undergone significant changes, which directly or indirectly affect the qualification of criminal offenses committed by organized criminal groups. Given the changes in criminal law, the qualification of criminal offenses committed by organized criminal groups requires uniform systemic approaches, primarily at the level of judicial law enforcement practice. The formation of the Ukrainian legal doctrine on the qualification of criminal offenses committed by organized criminal groups is one of the significant auxiliary guidelines in the formation of such law enforcement practice. To achieve this goal and the defined objectives, the following methods were applied in the study: logical and normative – for the analysis of criminal law on the qualification of criminal offenses committed by organized criminal groups; system analysis – when considering judicial law enforcement practice (first of all, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Ukraine) of the qualification of criminal offenses committed by organized criminal groups. The legislation strengthens criminal liability for criminal offenses by organized criminal groups, in particular, as evidenced by the amendments to the Criminal Code under the Law of Ukraine "On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine on Liability for Crimes Committed by the Criminal Community" dated by the 4th of June 2020. Before the formation of new approaches to the doctrine of criminal law and law enforcement judicial practice on the qualification of criminal offenses (crimes), a specific part of which is provided by h.ch. 1-5 art. 255 of the Criminal Code, the indirect reference is the provision of the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine of December 23, 2005 №12 "On the practice of consideration by courts of criminal cases on crimes committed by stable criminal groups." Keywords: criminal offenses, criminal community, criminal organization, organized group, creation of a criminal community, leadership of a criminal community, organized criminal groups.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 636
Author(s):  
Heppi Florensia ◽  
Mety Rahmawati

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (16) ◽  
pp. 139-161
Author(s):  
Anhelina Yevhenivna Oliinychenko

Domestic violence is a phenomenon that can take the form of a socially dangerous act and be qualified as a crime under Art. 126-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and other articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. It is the correctness of the criminal legal qualification of domestic violence that became the subject of our study.              The lack of systematic interpretation of Art. 126-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine leads in practice to the fact that the courts decide completely differently on the qualification of actions of a person. After all, domestic violence can be a manifestation of both an administrative offense and a criminally punishable act. That makes it impossible to further apply the restrictive measures of a criminal legal nature, enshrined in Art. 91-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Such situation has already become the basis for resolution in the order of review by higher courts and formation of a position on the most problematic aspects by the Supreme Court of Ukraine. In particular, in order to avoid the prohibited double conviction or punishment, the proceedings must be combined on a comprehensive basis and form a single whole. This means not only that the goal and the means used to achieve it must complement each other in nature and be linked in time, but also that the possible consequences of such legal response to appropriate behavior must be proportionate and predictable. for the persons to whom they relate.             Thus, the purpose of our study is to form a list of issues for the correct criminal legal qualification of actions under Art. 126-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, for the correct separation from the administrative offense under Art. 173-2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, as well as from other criminal offenses related to domestic violence. The task is to study the conclusions of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, to analyse the case law, to analyse the research conducted by non-governmental international organizations, as well as to analyse the positions of the doctrine of criminal and criminal procedure law on this issue.  


Cepalo ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-22
Author(s):  
Joko Sriwidodo

An agreement is a legal act in which a person promises to another person or more or in which two people promise to carry out something, as is also stated in Article 1313 of the Civil Code. Contract cases are the civil case domain, but they can become criminal offenses if what is promised is fictitious or a lie. However, the reality is that currently, in practice, many practitioners are confusing it so that the reporting party criminally reports many cases of this Agreement. The purpose of this research is to find out to what extent a case agreement can be reported criminally. The problems studied in this study are: (1) what is the significance of an agreement according to Indonesian Law? (2) what is the significance of an agreement as a criminal offense of fraud? In this research, the researcher provides an overview of the Agreement's significance according to national law and the meaning of the Agreement as a criminal offense of fraud, as we know that an agreement is a civil case domain but can be included in a criminal case if the elements as mentioned above are fulfilled. In Article 378 of the Criminal Code, as happened in the case of default as stated in the Supreme Court Jurisprudence No. 1689 K/Pid/2015, which gave a verdict that the defendant had violated Article 378 of the Criminal Code jo. 55 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code. This research is normative legal research conducted through library research by conducting studies and analyzing primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. And in writing this research, too, the researcher carried out observational activities of the practices carried out in the field.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 943
Author(s):  
Rizky Adiyanzah Wicaksono ◽  
Sri Kusriyah Kusriyah

Children who were doing mischief that led to the crime, should be against the law to account for his actions. Currently, prevention and control delinquency that resulted in minor criminal offenses is done through the implementation of the juvenile justice system to a restorative justice approach. The concept of restorative justice becomes a very important consideration in resolving criminal cases committed by children. The Supreme Court has issued a Supreme Court Regulation (Perma) No. 2 of 2012 on the Limitation Adjustment light crime and the amount of penalties in the Criminal Code, which essentially stipulates that the value limit losses in tipiring (Lightweight Crime) case is a maximum of 2.5 million, and against the threat case maximum criminal penalty of three months imprisonment or fine, as well as in the settlement tipiring must promote Restorative Justice. Child settlement, which is directed to resolving informally or out of court, with the involvement of all parties involved in the criminal act has occurred. Minor criminal offenses committed by children under the Act No. 11 of 2012 carried through the diversion mechanism by way of mediation or deliberation.Keywords: Restorative Justice; Lightweight Crime; Children.


2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 463
Author(s):  
NFN Ramiyanto

KUHAP sebagai hukum acara pidana yang bersifat umum tidak mengakui bukti elektronik sebagai salah satu jenis alat bukti yang sah. Di dalam praktik, bukti elektronik juga digunakan sebagai alat bukti yang sah untuk membuktikan tindak pidana yang terjadi di pengadilan. Dari hasil pembahasan dapat disimpulkan, bahwa bukti elektronik dalam hukum acara pidana berstatus sebagai alat bukti yang berdiri sendiri dan alat bukti yang tidak berdiri sendiri (pengganti bukti surat apabila memenuhi prinsip/dasar dalam functional equivalent approach dan perluasan bukti petunjuk) sebagaimana dicantumkan dalam beberapa undang-undang khusus dan instrumen hukum yang dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah Agung. Walaupun bukti elektronik tidak diatur dalam KUHAP sebagai lex generalis, namun untuk tercapainya kebenaran materiil dapat juga digunakan sebagai alat bukti yang sah untuk pembuktian seluruh jenis tindak pidana di pengadilan. Hal itu didasarkan pada pengakuan dalam praktik peradilan pidana, beberapa undang-undang khusus, dan instrumen yang dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah Agung.The Criminal Procedure Code as a general criminal procedure does not recognize electronic evidence as one of the admissible types of evidence. In practice, electronic evidence is also used as an admissible evidence to prove the criminal offenses in court. From the results of the discussion it can be concluded that electronic evidence in criminal procedure law is a dependent evidence and an independent evidence (substitution of letter proof if it meets the principle of functional equivalent approach and expansion of evidence) as specified in several special laws and instruments issued by the Supreme Court. The electronic evidence is not regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code as a lex generalis, however, to achieve material truth it can also be used as a valid evidence for the provision of all types of criminal offenses in court. It is based on recognition in the practice of criminal justice, some special laws, and instruments issued by the Supreme Court.


Author(s):  
A. Ya. Asnis

The article deals with the criminological grounds and background of the adoption of the Federal law of April 23, 2018 № 99-FZ, which introduced criminal liability for abuse in the procurement of goods, works and services for state or municipal needs (Art. 2004 of Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) and for bribery of employees of contract service, contract managers, members of the Commission on the implementation of the procurement of persons engaged in the acceptance of the delivered goods, performed works or rendered services, other authorized persons, representing interests of customer in the scope of the relevant procurement (Art. 2005 of the Criminal Code).The author formulates private rules of qualification of the corresponding crimes and differentiation of their structures from structures of adjacent crimes and administrative offenses. The necessity of changing the position of the legislator regarding generic and direct objects of these crimes, the adoption of a special resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to explain the practice of applying the relevant innovations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document