scholarly journals E-EVIDENCE OF CYBERCRIMINAL ACTIVITIES AS A NEW LEGAL PHENOMENON (BASED ON THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM, 2005)

2021 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 141-159
Author(s):  
Nhu Нan Pham ◽  
◽  
Nikolay Nikolayevich Demidov ◽  

Today's modern global society is facing an unexpected situation where cybercrimes are becoming more and more complicated, severely violating social order and security. The Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) Vietnam 2015 has made important amunpredictable endments and supplements to evidence and evidence institutions, which are important institutions on which procedural bodies base to perform their duties and exercise their powers. Most prominently, the regulation of evidence sources which is electronic data, an entirely new source of evidence, is to respond promptly to crimes using high technology. Within the scope of this article, the author focuses on the new points of the CrPC Vietnam 2015 on the source of evidence that is electronic data in high technology crimes. Further the principles of the evidence act has been explained with amendments in regard to electronic evidence. Finally the safeguards and procedure which needs to be adopted by the Vietnamese judiciary in handling electronic evidences.

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 130-134
Author(s):  
Gemaya Wangsa ◽  
Anak Agung Sagung Laksmi Dewi ◽  
I Wayan Arthanaya

The development of information technology and correspondence resulted in a shift in the format of print media to digital media, so that this growth was followed by the continuation of the development of a new criminal class that rode digital media in criminal acts of terrorism. This study aims to determine the regulations for the use of website evidence and the position of using website evidence in handling terrorism crimes in case number 140 / Pid.Sus / 2018 / PN.Jkt.Sel. This research uses a normative legal exploration method whose data comes from the determination related to the use of website evidence in Article 184 of the Criminal Code. The results of the research show that the determination of the exploitation of website evidence, which when based on Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code, means that electronic material is not classified as an abash instructional device classification, but if it is based on statutory regulations in a special crime, the electronic evidence media has resistance as a valid evidence, this can be seen in the provisions of Article 5 paragraph (1) of the ITE Law which are reaffirmed in the provisions of Article 44 of the ITE Law. Utilization of electronic evidence in the process of evidence in court is sourced from website evidence in law enforcement for criminal acts of terrorism in the Case Number 140 / Pid.Sus / 2018 / PN.Jkt.Sel scandal. Criminal Procedure, especially Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but has a judicial guideline that the judge cannot refuse to explore and decide the matters brought against him, provided that the law is unclear or non-existent, then the judges' rules should expose the meaning of continued and continuous law in the consortium, up to the provisions as contained in the ITE Law which regulates electronic instruction instruments as valid instruction devices.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 11-25
Author(s):  
Ni Made Trisna Dewi,Reido Lardiza Fahrial

Abuse in the electronic transaction because it is formed from an electronic process, so the object changes, the goods become electronic data and the evidence is electronic.  Referring to the provisions of positive law in Indonesia, there are several laws and regulations that have set about electronic evidence as legal evidence before the court but there is still debate between the usefulness and function of the electronic evidence itself, from that background in  The following problems can be formulated, How do law enforcement from investigations, prosecutions to criminal case decisions in cybercrimes and How is the use of electronic evidence in criminal case investigations in cybercrimes This research uses normative research methods that are moving from the existence of norm conflicts between the Criminal Procedure Code and  ITE Law Number 19 Year 2016 in the use of evidence.  The law enforcement process of the investigator, the prosecution until the court's decision cannot run in accordance with the provisions of ITE Law Number 19 of 2016, because in interpreting the use of electronic evidence still refers to Article 184 paragraph (1) KUHAP of the Criminal Procedure Code stated that the evidence used  Legitimate are: witness statements, expert statements, letters, instructions and statements of the accused so that the application of the ITE Law cannot be applied effectively The conclusion of this research is that law enforcement using electronic evidence in cyber crime cannot stand alone because the application of the Act  - ITE Law Number 19 Year 2016 still refers to the Criminal Code so that the evidence that is clear before the trial still refers to article 184 paragraph (1) KUHAP of the Criminal Procedure Code and the strength of proof of electronic evidence depends on the law enforcement agencies interpreting it because all electronic evidence is classified into  in evidence in the form of objects as  so there is a need for confidence from the legal apparatus in order to determine the position and truth of the electronic evidence.   Penyalahgunaan didalam transaksi elektronik tersebut karena terbentuk dari suatu proses elektronik, sehingga objeknya pun berubah, barang menjadi data elektronik dan alat buktinya pun bersifat elektronik. Mengacu pada ketentuan hukum positif di Indonesia, ada beberapa peraturan perundang-undangan yang telah mengatur mengenai alat bukti elektronik sebagai alat bukti yang sah di muka pengadilan tetapi tetap masih ada perdebatan antara kegunaan dan fungsi dari alat bukti elektronik itu sendiri, dari latar belakang tersebut di atas dapat dirumuskan masalah sebagai berikut, Bagaimana penegakkan hukum dari penyidikan, penuntutan sampai putusan perkara pidana dalam kejahatan cyber dan Bagaimanakah penggunaan bukti elektronik dalam pemeriksaan perkara pidana dalam kejahatan cyber Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian normatif yakni beranjak dari adanya konflik norma antara KUHAP dengan Undang-undang ITE Nomor 19 Tahun 2016 dalam penggunaan alat bukti. Proses penegakkan hukum dari penyidik, penuntutan sampai pada putusan pengadilan tidak dapat berjalan sesuai dengan ketentuan Undang-undang ITE Nomor 19 Tahun 2016, karena dalam melakukan penafsiran terhadap penggunaan alat bukti Elektronik masih mengacu pada Pasal 184 ayat (1) KUHAP disebutkan bahwa alat bukti yang sah adalah: keterangan saksi, keterangan ahli, surat, petunjuk dan keterangan terdakwa. sehingga penerapan Undang-undang ITE tidak dapat diterapkan secara efektiv. Kesimpulan dari penelitian ini adalah penegakan hukum dengan menggunakan alat bukti elektronik dalam kejahatan cyber tidak bisa berdiri sendiri karena penerapan Undang-Undang ITE Nomor 19 Tahun 2016 tetap merujuk kepada KUHP sehingga alat bukti yang sah di muka persidangan tetap mengacu pada pasal 184 ayat (1) KUHAP dan Kekuatan pembuktian alat bukti elektronik tersebut tergantung dari aparat hukum dalam menafsirkannya karena semua alat bukti elektronik tersebut digolongkan ke dalam alat bukti berupa benda sebagai petunjuk sehingga diperlukan juga keyakinan dari aparat hukum agar bisa menentukan posisi dan kebenaran dari alat bukti elektronik tersebut.


2021 ◽  
Vol 75 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-168
Author(s):  
Kateryna Kurnaieva ◽  

The article is devoted to the genesis of the investigative experiment as an independent investigative (search) action. The author analyzes the historical stages of origin, development, and determination of the place of the investigative experiment in the system of procedural actions in Ukraine. It is noted that the investigative experiment as a way to verify the evidence arose in the practice of pre-trial investigation. And then it became the object of study of legal science research. It is noted that the basis of the investigative experiment is the use of the method of scientific research method – testing to verify certain information. This is a sign of the introduction of truly scientific methods in the activities of law enforcement agencies. In this way the obtained evidence is given signs of belonging and admissibility. The testimony of the participants in the criminal proceedings and the investigative versions are checked by conducting an investigative experiment. Thus the reliability of the received information and the maintenance of a criminal offense is established. That is why the investigative experiment became widespread in the pre-trial investigation. Investigative experiment is a way to verify and to obtain evidence, but one of the most complex in its preparation and content. It is established that there is no detailed clear historical periodization of this procedural institution. The article compares the content of art. 194 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic dated 28.12.1960 «Reproduction of the situation and circumstances of the event» from art. 240 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine dated 13.04.2012 «Investigative experiment». The conclusion that the investigative experiment is an independent investigative (investigative) action is substantiated, but some questions concerning its conduct remain ambiguous. Currently, this is the basis for discussions, which indicates the relevance of this procedural institution and its development.


Author(s):  
Anastasiia Antoniuk ◽  
◽  
Valeriia Rusetska ◽  

This article is devoted to the consideration of theoretical issues related to the introduction in Ukraine of the institution of electronic evidence of criminal proceedings. The article also raises the question of ways to obtain electronic evidence. The article notes that in the modern developed world there are more and more new types of crimes. In this context, we will consider crimes closely related to the use of information technology. Proving such crimes raises some difficulties. To date, it is relevant to consolidate the concept of electronic evidence in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and the formation of a methodology for their study. Also, the author of the article notes that among the unresolved and problematic aspects of using electronic evidence in criminal proceedings in Ukraine, scientists distinguish: the lack of a clear procedural procedure for obtaining them in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine; lack of grounds for declaring electronic evidence inadmissible; difficulties in identifying and fixing electronic evidence due to the lack of specialized knowledge among investigators, which necessitates the involvement of specialists for conducting legal proceedings; lack of a developed methodology for studying such evidence; lack of uniform terminology and regulation at the legislative level. It is determined in the article that for the effective implementation of international law in the field of combating cybercrime, it is advisable to substantiate the need for a legislative definition of electronic evidence, sources of their formation, the admissibility of international cooperation through the exchange of electronic evidence, the expediency of using electronic methods of sending requests and responses about their implementation, the possibility application of control information supply for investigation of transnational computer crimes. Based on the above, the author offers his own definition of electronic evidence. It is concluded that it is necessary to legislatively consolidate the term "electronic evidence" and continue to study the category, the importance of developing a methodology for studying electronic evidence, the procedure for collecting and recording them.


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-46
Author(s):  
Pandoe Pramoe Kartika

The writing of this scientific work is motivated by the difficulty of legal institutions such as the court in carrying out the verification of criminal cases related to Electronic Data. Evidence is fundamental in every criminal case. Therefore, evidence becomes a very decisive thing whether or not a person is convicted. However, the Criminal Procedure Code as a formal law in Indonesia, has not regulated electronic evidence as a legal evidence. The research method used is normative research using a statutory and analytical approach, while data collection through literature studies and interviews and qualitative descriptive data analysis. The results of the study indicate that proof of the ITE Law is lex specialis, because the ITE Law regulates everything that is more specific in the evidentiary law contained in the Criminal Procedure Code. The legal proof of electronic aspect as a legitimate evidence in the case of money laundering is regulated in Article 73 and with the enactment of the ITE Law, it is increasingly emphasized that electronic documentary evidence is a legitimate and recognized evidence in Indonesian procedural law. Penulisan karya ilmiah ini dilatar belakangi oleh sulitnya lembaga hukum seperti pengadilan dalam hal melaksanakan pembuktian perkara pidana yang berhubungan dengan Data Elektronik. Bukti merupakan hal mendasar dalam setiap perkara pidana. Oleh karena itu, alat bukti menjadi hal yang sangat menentukan dapat tidaknya seseorang dipidana. Namun, Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana sebagai hukum formil di Indonesia, belum mengatur mengenai alat bukti elektronik sebagai alat bukti yang sah. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan analitis, sedangkan pengumpulan data melalui studi pustaka dan wawancara serta analisis data secara deskriptif kualitatif. Hasil kajian menunjukkan bahwa pembuktian pada UU ITE bersifat lex specialis, dikarenakan UU ITE mengatur segala sesuatu yang lebih spesifik dalam hukum pembuktian yang terdapat di dalam KUHAP. Aspek hukum pembuktian elektronik sebagai alat bukti yang sah dalam kasus tindak pidana pencucian uang diatur dalam Pasal 73 dan dengan diberlakukannya UU ITE semakin dipertegas bahwa alat bukti dokumen elektronik merupakan alat bukti yang sah dan diakui dalam hukum acara Indonesia.


2021 ◽  
pp. 32-37
Author(s):  
Р.О. Абдульдинов ◽  
T.A. Khanov

The article discusses certain issues related to the protocol form of pre-trial investigation of criminalcases. A hypothesis is tested that defines protocol proceedings as a simplified (accelerated) form of pre-trialinvestigation used in criminal proceedings in the Republic of Kazakhstan. A comparative analysis of theprotocol form of pre-trial preparation of materials has been carried out. This form was in force in the 1959Criminal Procedure Code of the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic. The simplified procedure for pre-trialproceedings was introduced by the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan in 1997.The accelerated procedure for pre-trial investigation has been in force in the criminal procedurelegislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan since 2014. The authors came to the conclusion that the protocolform is a full-fledged procedural production of the pre-trial investigation. This form practically does notcontain elements of simplification, and the introduced changes and additions have brought to naught theaccelerated procedure. This led to the fact that most of the cases are terminated due to violation of thetimeframe for the investigation.


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

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.Keywords: electronic evidence, admissible evidence, criminal procedure code, proof


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 98-117
Author(s):  
I Made Dwi Krisnanda, Madiasa Ablisar, Sunarmi, Mahmud Mulyadi

Law No. 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Procedure Code), has set the evidence that can be done in front of the trial. Article 183 of the Criminal Procedure Code implies that a minimum of 2 (two) valid evidence are required. Article 184 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code regulates valid evidence, namely: witness statements; expert statements; letter; instructions; and the statement of the defendant. However, since the trial of Jesica Kumala Wongso which was broadcast on television almost every day, it turns out there is one more proof that is not contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, namely: digital evidence. The object of this study is the Medan District Court Decision No. 3168/Pid.Sus/2018/PN.Mdn., Dated May 23, 2019, concerning the use of digital evidence An. Defendant HDL Alias ​​Himma for alleged "criminal acts of hate speech". Law No. 11 of 2008 as amended by Law No. 19 of 2016 concerning Amendments to the Information and Electronic Transaction Law which governs electronic evidence. The problems in this study, namely: the position of proof of digital evidence before the trial is associated with criminal conviction; use of digital evidence in criminal acts of hate speech on social media; and juridical analysis of digital evidence in proving criminal acts of hate speech in Medan District Court Decision No. 3168/Pid.Sus/ 2018/PN.Mdn.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document