scholarly journals Corruption and Reversal Burden of Proof

2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 62
Author(s):  
Wahyu Wiriadinata
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Social Engineering ◽  
Analytical Form ◽  
Proof System ◽  
Law System ◽  
Legal Science ◽  
Theoretical Frame

This paper, entitled Corruption and Reversal Burden of Proof, was intended to deal with a question on the extent of the effectiveness of a reversal burden of proof as stipulated in positive (applicable) Indonesia law, that is, as provided for in Law Number 31 of 1999 on Eradication of Corruption Crime. Then, a problem that rose next was: could the application of reversal burden of proof in proving a corruption crime case prevent or reduce or even eliminate totally corruption crimes in Indonesia? This research built on a theoretical frame of thought from Roscoe Pound, who maintains that law is a tool of social engineering. This concept was cited by Muchtar Kusumaatmadja, who adapted it to Indonesia conditions and adjusted it to be law as a social engineering medium. Engineering is meant here as a transformation of the thinking ways of people from traditional thinking ways to modern ones. Law should be made as a means in resolving the entire problems that emerge between and among community, including corruption crimes. One of the things that needs to be changed is a law of proof law system, that is, from a conventional proof system to be a reversal one. This paper was written by a juridical-normative method, that is, by studying legislations, be they are contained in laws and those contained in literature/books on legal science, particularly legislations related to reversal burden of proof. Then, the results, in a form of juridical aspect, was written in a descriptive-analytical form. The overall conclusion of this research was an answer of the problems posed above, that is: Corruption crimes have been continuously occurring till now in Indonesia. Thus, Law Number 31 of 1999, particularly Article 37, has not been effective yet in eradicating corruption crimes.

scholarly journals PENERAPAN BEBAN PEMBUKTIAN TERBALIK DALAM PERAMPASAN ILLICIT ENRICHMENT KAITANNYA DENGAN HAK ASASI MANUSIA

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 392
Author(s):  
A.A Mirah Endraswari
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Proof System ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Law System ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Penal Law ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
The Law

The way to prevention of corruption is to use the reversal burden of proof system to the official public wealth that is not fair ( illicit enrichment ), but in the implementation there is an indication against violation of human rights. This research will be discuss how rule about the reversal burden of proof in the penal law system of Indonesia ? and how to application the reversal burden of proof in deprivation the illicit enrichment which is related with the human rights ?. Method used in this research is normative law research. Data analysis is conducted on primary and secondary law materials and then comparing those both as well were processed and presented by descriptive analysis. Related norm about the reversal burden of proof system now is regulated in act No. 31 of 1999, act No 20 of 2001 and act No. 8 of 2010, but the character of reversal burden of proof system in Indonesia still limited because it can only be used during the trials. Then related illicit enrichment norm is not regulated in Indonesia act’s, while Indonesia has been ratified about illicit enrichment in Article 20 UNCAC. The pros and cons related to the implementation of reversal burden of proof to illicit enrichment it happens because it is considered to against of human rights, which is related to the principle of presumption of innocence and non – self incrimination. However, with regard to other legal principles and consider the interests of the wider, the regulation of the illicit enrichment should be regulated in the provisions of the law in Indonesia. Considering the purpose of the law it self is fighting corruption, money laundering and optimize return on assets of criminals who gained from the crime. Penanggulangan tindak pidana korupsi sebagai kejahatan yang sifatnya luar biasa (extraordinary crime ) membutuhkan penanganan yang sifatnya luar biasa pula. Adapun cara yang dapat ditempuh yaitu dengan menerapan sistem pembuktian terbalik  terhadap kekayaan pejabat Negara yang dimiliki secara tidak sah ( illicit enrichment ), namun dalam pelaksanaannya terdapat indikasi bahwa akan  bersinggungan dengan Hak Asasi Manusia ( HAM ). Dalam penelitian ini akan dibahas mengenai bagaimana pengaturan terkait pembuktian terbalik yang diatur dalam  sistem hukum pidana di Indonesia ? dan bagaimanakah penerapan sistem pembuktian terbalik dalam perampasan terhadap illicit enrichment dikaitkan dengan Hak Asasi Manusia ( HAM ) ?. Metode dalam penelitian ini menggunaan penelitian hukum normatif. Pada penelitian ini difokuskan pada hukum positif serta sumber bahan hukum baik berasal dari primer maupun sekunder. Analisis data dilakukan terhadap bahan hukum primer dan bahan hukum sekunder yang selanjutnya diolah dan disajikan secara deskriptif analisis. Terkait tentang pengaturan sistem pembuktian terbalik saat ini telah diatur dalam ketentuan Undang – Undang No. 31 Tahun 1999 jo Undang – Undang No. 20 Tahun 2001 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana korupsi serta Undang – Undang No. 8 Tahun 2010 tentang Tindak Pidana Pencucian Uang, namun sifatnya masih terbatas karena penggunaanya hanya dapat dilakukan pada saat persidangan saja. Sedangkan pengaturan terkait illicit enrichment saat ini belum diatur dalam ketentuan perundang – undangan, padahal Indonesia sendiri telah meratifikasi ketentuan illicit enrichment sebagaimana ketentuan Pasal 20  UNCAC. Pro dan kontra terkait penerapan pembuktian terbalik pada illicit enrichment karena ada indikasi bersinggungan dengan Hak Asasi Manusia ( HAM ) khususnya pada asas presumption of innocence dan non – self incrimination. Meskipun demikian, dengan memperhatikan prinsip hukum lainnya  serta untuk    kepentingan yang lebih luas maka pengaturan illicit enrichment sudah seharusnya diatur dalam ketentuan perundang – undangan di Indonesia. Mengingat tujuan pengaturannya  itu sendiri yakni demi memberantas tindak pidana korupsi, tindak pidana pencucian uang serta pengembalian aset  - aset yang diperoleh dari tindak pidana tersebut.

Proof of Causation in Tort Cases

2020 ◽  
Vol 82 ◽  
pp. 149-160
Author(s):  
Bohdan Karnaukh
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Reasonable Doubt ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Ways Of Coping ◽  
Law System ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
Civil Cases ◽  
Civil Law System

The article addresses the problem of uncertainty over causation in tort cases. It reveals the interconnection between burden of proof and standard of proof. The author provides a comparative overview of approaches to standard of proof in common law and civil law systems. It is argued that while in common law there are two different standards viz: beyond-reasonable-doubt-standard for criminal cases and balanceof-probabilities standard for civil cases in civil law system there is only one standard applicable both to criminal and civil cases. With comparative analysis in the background the article also reveals the peculiarities of Ukrainian law in the respect of the issue raised. The problem is approached in a pragmatic manner: using a hypothetical case the author models practical outcomes entailed by each of the approaches being applied to the case. Eventually the conclusion is made that there are four ways of coping with uncertainty over causation: (1) to reverse the burden of proof; (2) to calibrate the standard of proof for certain cases; (3) to recognize the very creation of the abnormal risk as a compensable damage; and (4) to multiply damage plaintiff sustained by the probability factor indicating the likelihood of the damage being actually caused by the defendant.

scholarly journals The implication of reversal burden proof on corruption criminal act

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. e60942844
Author(s):  
Djoko Sumaryanto
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Behavior ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Proof System ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
Financial Losses

The polemic of the ratification of KPK (Corruption Eradication Commission) Constitution indicated the good intentions of government as well as people in society through their respective perceptions which in conclusion whether the KPK is getting stronger or become weaker. The aim of this analysis is to examine on the implication of reversal burden proof system on corruption criminal act in Indonesian Law. Reversal of the burden proof as determined in the PTPK Law and the 2003 KAK Law leaves problems in its implementation, through normative legal research with the study of laws and comparisons, something new is obtained which is a guideline for judges in giving verdicts regarding the results of verification of assets and actions. Implications of proven or unproven acts and assets of the defendant through reversing the burden of proof of criminal criminal behavior which is greatly affects the received sanction by the defendant which include imprisonment penalties, criminal sanctions for fines and additional criminal sanctions in the form of returning state financial losses.

scholarly journals PENERAPAN SISTEM PEMBUKTIAN TERBALIK TERHADAP TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI (SEBUAH UPAYA PROGRESIF DALAM PEMBERANTASAN TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI)

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muwahid
Keyword(s):  
Data Analysis ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Proof System ◽  
Conventional System ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
The Law

<p align="center"><strong>Abstract</strong></p><p>The main object of this research is the regulation reversal burden of proof system of corruption in Act Number 20 of 2001. This research is a normative legal research, data obtained from primary legal materials that legislation, and secondary legal materials namely, books, journals and law relating to the burden of proof. The technique of data analysis uses content analysis.The results of research showed, <em>First</em> the reversal burden of proof system in criminal law of corruption stipulated in Article 12B paragraph (1), Article 37, Article 38A and Article 38B of Act Number 20 of 2001 on the eradication of corruption.<em> Second,</em> the application of reversal burden of proof principle in a criminal act of corruption is a specific provision in the law of criminal procedure, as a way to take war or eradicate of the corruption which is an extra ordinary crime, this provision is evidence of irregularities in the conventional system as was stipulated by the Criminal Code, in this case applies the principle of <em>lex specialis derogat lex generalis.</em><em></em></p><p><strong>Keywords</strong>: <em>Aplication,</em> <em>Reversal Burden of Proof, Corruption.</em></p>

scholarly journals Hak Cipta Karya Seni Lukis Sebagai Jaminan Fidusia

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-36
Author(s):  
Ni Kadek Emy Kencana Wati ◽  
I Nyoman Putu Budiartha ◽  
I Ketut Sukadana
Keyword(s):  
Analytical Form ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Moral Rights ◽  
Copyright Holder ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Law System ◽  
Materials Used ◽  
The Right

The use of copyright for painting artworks in the Intellectual Property Law system in Indonesia provides many benefits for painters as copyright owners or copyright holders. A creator or copyright holder has Economic Rights on his work which includes the right to duplicate, display, and lease his work to third parties. Copyright Law No. 28/2014 states that copyright can be used as an object of Fiduciary security. This study aims to determine the characteristics of the copyright of painting works that can be used as fiduciary guarantees to get credit in banking and to analyze the execution of copyright guarantees of painting works if the debtor defaults The method used is normative legal research with a statutory approach and a conceptual approach, and the sources of legal materials used are primary and secondary legal materials with literature collection techniques which are analyzed in descriptive analytical form. Based on the results of the study, it can be concluded that the characteristics of copyright in painting are providing protection for works of art and providing economic rights for the creators or copyright holders and moral rights for the creators. The execution of copyright guarantees can be done by executorial method in accordance with article 29 of the Fiduciary Law.

scholarly journals Effectiveness to the reversal of the burden proof system in handling corruption case

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-20
Author(s):  
Deddy Mursanto ◽  
La Ode Muhammad Karim ◽  
Mashendra Mashendra
Keyword(s):  
Data Analysis ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Proof System ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
Corruption Case ◽  
Data Analysis Method ◽  
The Law ◽  
Descriptive Qualitative

Corruption is an act that can harm State finances and cause losses to the people's economy. This study aims to determine the arrangement of the burden of proof reversals system of corruption according to the applicable provisions and the proper regulation in implementing the system of reversing the burden of proof to be done optimally. This study uses a normative juridical research methodology with a statute approach. This research's data analysis method is descriptive qualitative by describing the problems and facts in writing from the literature. The study indicates that the burden of proof reversal system concerning the Eradication of Corruption Crimes contained in Law no. 20 of 2001 is limited only to the offense of gratification regulated in Article 12 B paragraph (1) letter a. The withdrawal presumption proof can also be extended to the defendant's property, which is claimed to be connected to the accused's case (Article 37 A) and the property of the defendant (who has not been charged) which is not accused of corruption as a result of a criminal act (Article 38 B). Reversal of the burden of proof in the law of corruption is a reversal of the burden of proof impartial public prosecutor and the defendant alike must prove but / the same element proved different.

scholarly journals Law and Legal Science in the Age of Big Data

Intersections ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zsolt Ződi
Keyword(s):  
Big Data ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Social Engineering ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Legal Science ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The One ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Law Making

The paper aims to contribute to the understanding of the connection of law and legal science, on the one hand, and the Big Data phenomenon, on the other. The connection of Big Data and law can be thematised in several ways. This article makes a distinction whereby there are two levels of interplay between Big Data and the law (and legal science). Big Data on the one hand can be the subject of legal regulation and legal science, but it also can be a tool for better, ‘predictive’ law making and lawyering. This latter is also true for legal science: Big Data opens a whole range of possibilities as a new tool. Thus, this article discusses three fields and questions in three sections: 1. Big Data as the subject of legal regulation. What kind of moral questions does Big Data, and the predictive potential it has, raise? How does law recently frame, define and regulate the Big Data phenomenon? How does Big Data affect existing legal framework rules regarding privacy, data protection, competition, business regulatory, etc.? What will the new rules, regulating Big Data look like? 2. Big Data as a tool in the regulator’s and the lawyer’s hand. How can we exploit the new possibilities provided by Big Data in law making, policy creation and the application of law? How can we design new ways of ‘Big Data-based social engineering’? How can we create predictive tools and inferencing techniques based on Big Data in policing, law enforcement and litigation? Finally in part 3. I discuss the impact of Big Data on legal science. How can Big Data, as a research tool help legal science? How do we use legal data-sets and textual corpuses as BD? How will these ‘super-empirical’ research methods affect legal scholarship? What is the relationship between traditional doctrinal scholarship and the new types of BD-based research? How can we use statistical analysis, natural language processing, content analysis, machine learning, behavioural prediction, etc. in legal science?

scholarly journals Analisis Penerapan Pembuktian Terbalik dalam Kasus Tindak Pidana Korupsi

Al-Mizan ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-248
Author(s):  
Arhjayati Rahim ◽  
Madinah Mokobombang
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Proof System ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Right ◽  
Research Show

Evidence in criminal cases is generally borne by the public prosecutor. This is different from the criminal case of corruption, in addition to being proven by the public prosecutor, the defendant also has the right to prove that he did not commit a criminal act of corruption. This study aims to determine the arrangement of the shifting burden of proof system in cases of corruption and the application of the shifting burden of proof system in cases of corruption in Decision Number: 22/Pid.Sus-TPK/2018/PN.Gto. This type of research is a literature analyzed with a normative juridical approach. The results of the research show that the Decision Number: 22/Pid.Sus-TPK/2018/PN.Gto, seen from the evidence that in terms of the application of reverse evidence, the defendant exercised his right to carry out shifting burden of proof. However, the defendant did not prove that the property he had obtained was not the result of a criminal act of corruption, even though it was his obligation to prove this, so that the right to shifting burden of proof evidence was not fully utilized by the defendant.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document