TINJAUAN HUKUM TERHADAP PENERBITAN CEK KOSONG

Abstrak Permasalahan yang sangat penting khususnya dalam penerbitan cek kosong adalah apakah tindakan menerbitkan surat cek kosong merupakan delik atau bukan?Pada saat yang bagaimana tindakan menerbitkan surat cek kosong dapat dikatakan delik ?Sehingga perlu dilaksanakan tinjauan hokum terhadap penerbitan cek kosong yang bertujuan agar mengetahui apakah tindakan tersebut dapat dipidana atau cukup ganti rugi saja, untuk menentukan apakah perbuatan menerbitkan cek kosong merupakan delik atau bukan, maka perbuatan itu harus memenuhi unsur-unsur pidana, yang didalamnya terkandung unsur: penipuan/perkataan bohong atau niat yang tidak baik dari semula sehingga dapat dikenakan pidana yang diatur dalam pasal 378 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana(KUHP) yang dikuatkan dengan Yurisprudensi MA RI No. 133 K/Kr/1973 dan Yurisprudensi MA RI No. 1036 K/Pid/1989 tanggal 31 Agustus 1992. Penerbit cek bisa terhindar dari tuduhan menerbitkan cek kosong sebagai perbuatan pidana karena setelah rekeningnya ditutup oleh pihak Bank barulah cek yang bertanggal mundur (post date check) yang melebihi tanggal penutupan rekening gironya, ditunjukkan ke Bank untuk dicairkan, maka dapat dikenakan tuntutan perdata seperti yang diatur dalam pasal 1365 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata. Kata Kunci :Tinjauan Hukum, Cek Kosong , Delik atau bukandelik LEGAL REVIEW OF ISSUANCE OF BLANK CHECK Abstract A very important issue, especially in the issuance of blank checks, is whether the act of issuing a blank check is a crime or not? At what time can the act of issuing a blank check be considered a crime? So it is necessary to carry out a legal review of the issuance of a blank check with the aim of finding out whether the act is can be punished or just compensation, to determine whether the act of issuing a blank check is an offense or not, then the act must meet the criminal elements, which contain the following elements: fraud / false speech or bad intentions from the beginning so that it can be subject to criminal which is regulated in article 378 of the Criminal Code (KUHP) which is strengthened by the Supreme Court Jurisprudence No. 133 K/Kr/1973 and MA RI Jurisprudence No. 1036 K/Pid/1989 dated August 31, 1992. A check issuer can avoid being accused of issuing a blank check as a criminal act because after the account is closed by the Bank, a post date check that exceeds the closing date of the checking account is shown to the Bank. to be disbursed, it can be subject to civil claims as regulated in Article 1365 of the Civil Code. Keywords: Legal Review, Blank Check, Offense or Non-Delict

Legal Doctrine and Judicial Review of Eminent Domain in China

Which of the three legal doctrines of public use, just compensation, and due process is the most effective in constraining abuses of eminent domain power? This article addresses this question for the first time and presents the first-ever systematic investigation of the judicial review of eminent domain in China. Our empirical study reveals that Chinese courts focus on eminent domain procedures while rarely supporting claims based on public interest or just compensation. Procedural rules are determinate and therefore easier to enforce than substantial standards of public interest and just compensation. Chinese courts also choose to focus on eminent domain procedures to confine their own judicial review power for the purpose of self-preservation in an authoritarian state that empowers the courts to monitor and control local governments but does not want them to become too powerful. The study calls for a “due process revolution” in eminent domain law and introduces the “judicial politics of legal doctrine” approach to the study of Chinese law, an approach that takes both political institutions and legal doctrines seriously.

Enkev Beheer BV (of the Netherlands) v. Republic of Poland

630Procedure — Addition of a party — Conditional application — UNCITRAL Rules, Article 22 — UNCITRAL Rules, Article 17 — Whether the UNCITRAL Rules or lex loci arbitri allowed for applications to be made conditional on a tribunal’s future decision — Whether the application was consistent with the State’s procedural rights — Whether the amendment to a claim under Article 22 of the UNCITRAL Rules allowed for the addition of a third party as claimantJurisdiction — Investment — Shares — Whether an investor’s shares and rights derived from those shares were protected investments under the BITJurisdiction — Investment — Assets of subsidiary — Whether profits, goodwill or know-how of a local subsidiary constituted investments of the investor protected by the BITJurisdiction — Consent — Cooling-off period — Premature claims — Whether the investor had communicated its own claims rather than those of its local subsidiary — Whether the investor’s failure to comply with a waiting period of six months under the BIT required a tribunal to deny jurisdiction or admissibility — Whether the negotiation of a local subsidiary’s dispute in good faith was relevant to jurisdiction over a foreign investor’s claimsInterpretation — Cooling-off period — VCLT, Article 31 — Object and purpose — Whether the object and purpose of the BIT required a tribunal not to adopt a strict or formalistic interpretation of the waiting period of six monthsRemedies — Declaratory award — Interpretation — Just compensation — Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction under the BIT to make a declaratory award on the interpretation and application of the term “just compensation”Jurisdiction — Dispute — Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction under the BIT to advise the parties of an imminent disputeExpropriation — Direct deprivation — Shares — Rights derived from shares — Whether the State directly deprived the investor of its rights as a shareholder in its local subsidiaryExpropriation — Indirect deprivation — Shares — Rights derived from shares — Whether the shares had lost all or almost all significant commercial value — Whether the measures were adopted in the public interest — Whether due process had been followed — Whether there were any undertakings by the StateExpropriation — Interpretation — “Just compensation” — Whether there was any difference between the terms of the BIT and general international law — Whether the meaning of just compensation could be determined in the abstract631Fair and equitable treatment — Whether the impending expropriation constituted a breach of the standard of fair and equitable treatment — Whether the claim concerned the investor’s rights derived from sharesFull protection and security — Whether the State failed to protect an investment from expropriation by local authorities — Whether the claim concerned the investor’s rights derived from sharesUmbrella clause — Whether there was any assurance directed at the investor that created any legal obligations — Whether the claim concerned the investor’s rights derived from sharesCosts — Arbitration costs — Variation by agreement — UNCITRAL Rules — Whether the terms of the BIT varied the default rules for the allocation of arbitration costs

Court on the Judiciary

This chapter studies Article VII-A of the Oklahoma constitution, which concerns the court on the judiciary. Section 1 provides for the removal of judges from office and compulsory retirement, and their causes. As long as the standards used are constitutionally permissible and due process is followed, the state may exclude from public employment people—and presumably judges—whose unfitness and unsuitability bears a rational relationship to qualifications for the position in question. Section 2 provides for the creation, membership, and jurisdiction of the court on the judiciary, which is divided into a trial division and an appellate division. Meanwhile, Section 6 attempts to restrict partial or prejudiced judges from presiding over an action before the court on the judiciary, and allows the payment of an expense allowance to district judges serving outside their districts. Prosecutors are to receive “fair and just” compensation.