¹Jefri Hardi, ²Bambang Waluyo

^1,2University of Pembangunan Nasional “Veteran” Jakarta

DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v5-i1-13

Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT

The Constitutional Court (MK) issued Decision Number 25/PUU-XIV/2016 on January 25, 2017. This decision states clearly that the word "can" in Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 of Law Number 31 Year 1999 jo. Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption (UU Tipikor) is unconstitutional and lacks legal force. With the elimination of the word "can," a person can only be said to have violated Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 of the Anti-Corruption Law if the person's actions resulted in real state losses, or losses of the nature of actual loss, and not to accommodate state losses that are still potential, or potential losses.

REFERENCES

1) Amir Syamsudin, Putusan MK dalam Penegakan Hukum Korupsi, Harian Kompas 02 Februari 2017.

2) Baharudin Lopa, UU PTPK, Berikut Pembahasan Serta Penerapannya Dalam Praktek, Alumni, Bandung, 1987

3) Emerson Yuntho, et.al, “Penerapan Unsur Merugikan Keuangan Negara dalam Delik Tindak Pidana Korupsi”, (Laporan Hasil Penelitian, Indonesian Corruption Watch, 2004 Fatkhurohman, Pergeseran Delik Korupsi dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 25/PUU-XIV/2016, Jurnal Konstitusi, Volume 14, Nomor 1, Maret 2017.

4) Hernold Ferry, Kerugian Keuangan Negara dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi, Thafa Media, Yogyakarta, 2014.

5) H.C. Hulsman, Sistem Peradilan Pidana (dalam perspektif perbandingan hukum), terpetik dalam Soedjono Dirdjosisworo, CV. Rajawali, Jakarta, 1984

6) Muhammad Yusuf, Merampas Aset Koruptor: Solusi Pemberantasan Korupsi di Indonesia, Kompas Media Nusantara, 2013

7) Constitutional Court Decision Number 25/PUU-XIV/2016

VOlUME 05 ISSUE 01 JANUARY 2022