¹Dadang Kurniawan Winjaya,²Pujiyono

^1,2Master of Law, Faculty of Law, Diponegoro University, Indonesia

DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v6-i7-81

Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT

Evil grows as society progresses, not only to the types and methods of evil, but also to the subject or perpetrator themselves. Corporate acceptance asa subject of criminal action, which leads to criminal law enforcement problems in corporate criminal liability. Whereas law enforcement doesn't recognize corporations as the subject of law, allowing people to exploit their legal loopholes. As for the rules governing corporate accountability that exist up until now are considered less effective and efficient. The clear corporate policy is still at the stage of criminal design that has been fully regulated and firm as the subject of criminal law and is accountable in criminal law and receives absolute criminal accountability and replacement crimes, even with the exception of solving the difficulties of proving an element of wrongdoing committed by a corporation. Research methods used are normative law research methods with law enforcement approaches, comparisons and concept analysis of the law.

KEYWORDS:

corporate policy, criminal wrongdoing, and accountability

REFERENCES

1) Barda Nawawi Arief (penyunting), 1999, Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi (Bahan Bacaan Kapita Selekta Hukum Pidana), Program S2 (Magister) Ilmu Hukum Pascasarjana Universitas Diponegoro

2) Barda Nawawi Arief dan Muladi, 1992, Teori-teori dan Kebijakan Pidana, Alumni, Bandung.

3) I Dewa Made Suartha, 2015, Hukum Pidana Korporasi, Persfektif Pertanggungjawaban Pidana dalam Kebijakan Hukum Pidana Indonesia, Setara Press, Malang.

4) Marcus Flatcher, 1990, A-Level Principle of English Law, Ist Editon, HLT Publiction, London.

5) Peter Siago, 1989, Criminal Law, 3rd Edition, Sweet & Mazwell, London.

6) Retnowinarni, R. (2019). Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Terhadap Korporasi Di Indonesia. Perspektif Hukum, 19(1).

7) Sue Titus Reid, 1978, Criminal Law, 3rd Edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

8) Nurisman, E., & Sandy, D. M. (2017). Penerapan Sanksi Perdata terhadap Korporasi dalam Sengketa Lingkungan Hidup. Journal of Judicial Review, 18(1)

9) Sanjaya, B., Muladi, M., Sari, R. K., & Disemadi, H. S. (2020). Inkonsistensi Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi dalam Peraturan Perundang-Undangan di Luar KUHP. Pandecta Research Law Journal, 15(2)

10) Disemadi, H. S., & Jaya, N. S. P. (2019). Perkembangan Pengaturan Korporasi Sebagai Subjek Hukum Pidana Di Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum Media Bhakti, 3(2),

11) Tantimin, T. (2018). Pertanggungjawaban Korporasi terhadap Pencemaran Lingkungan Hidup: Studi Pada Pt Horizon Bandar Bahru di Batam. Journal of Judicial Review, 19(2).

12) Puspitasari, I., & Devintawati, E. (2018). Urgensi Pengaturan Kejahatan Korporasi dalam Pertanggungjawaban Tindak Pidana Korporasi Menurut RKUHP. Kanun Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 20(2)

13) Gobert dan Punch, Rethinking The Corporate Crime, http://maswig.blogspot.com, diakses pada tanggal 20 Juni 2022

VOlUME 06 ISSUE 07 JULY 2023