Volume 07 Issue 08 August 2024
1Rahmat Muhajirin, 2Joko Nur Sariono, 3Ria Tri Vinata
1,2,3Faculty of Law, Wijaya Kusuma Surabaya University
DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v7-i08-58Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT
This research is entitled "Additional Criminal Penalties Can Be Used as a Substitute in Corruption Cases". The type of research used in this research is normative, namely by basing it on the applicable laws and regulations (positive law) using the approach of laws and regulations and conceptual. Where all the legal materials collected, both primary legal materials and secondary legal materials, will be processed and analyzed systematically, which are presented in the form of descriptions related to the theory or legal principles so as to obtain a clear conclusion and picture in the discussion of the problem. Based on the research as mentioned, the discussion can be produced: additional criminal penalties in the form of replacement money, especially in district court decisions, it can be concluded that the legality of additional criminal penalties in the form of replacement money in corruption cases lies in Article 18 of Law No. 31 of 1999 which has been improved by Law No. 20 of 2001 concerning Amendments to Law No. 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Corruption. As for the benchmark for its determination, it is contained in Article 18 paragraph (1) letter b. which reads "payment of replacement money as much as possible equal to the assets obtained from the criminal act of corruption". Related to the definition of state financial losses which is one of the important elements in the article regulating criminal acts of corruption, it can be concluded that "a reduction in state assets or an increase in state obligations without being balanced by achievements caused by 'unlawful' acts". The Judge's Consideration in the district court's decision can be said to be less relevant when associated with additional penalties in the verdict in the form of replacement money. This is because the relationship between the considerations and the verdict pronounced by the Judge is 'blurred', as well as the amount of additional penalties in the form of replacement money that does not correspond to the amount of state financial losses contained in his considerations.
KEYWORDS:additional penalties; criminal acts; corruption
REFERENCES1) Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana.
2) Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana.
3) Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi.
4) Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2002 tentang Komisi PemberantasanTindak Pidana Korupsi.
5) Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi Jo. Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi.
6) Undang-Undang Nomor 46 Tahun 2009 tentang Pengadilan Tindak Pidana Korupsi.
7) Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 1999 tentang Penyelenggaraan Negara yang Bersih dan Bebas dari Korupsi, Kolusi dan Nepotisme.
8) Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2010 tentang Pencegahan dan Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Pencucian Uang.
9) Undang-Undang Nomor 13 Tahun 2006 tentang Perlindungan Saksi dan Korban.
10) Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 2006 tentang Pengesahan United Nations Convention Against Corruption 2003 (Konvensi Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa Anti Korupsi-2003).
11) TAP MPR Nomor: XI/MPR/1998 tentang Penyelenggaraan Negara yang Bersih dan Bebas Korupsi, Kolusi dan Nepotisme.
12) Andi Hamzah, 2012, Pemberantasan Korupsi, Melalui Hukum Pidana Nasional dan Internasional, PT. Raja Grafindo Persada, Jakarta.
13) Ermansjah Djaja, 2010, Mendesain Pengadilan Tindak Pidana Korupsi, Implikasi Putusan Mahakamah Konstitusi Nomor 012-016-019/PPU-IV/2006, Sinar Grafika, Jakarta, 2010.
14) Herbert L. Packer, 1968, The Limits of The Criminal Sanction, Stanford University Press, Stanford.
15) Jan Remmelink, 2003, Hukum Pidana, Komentar Atas Pasal Pasal Terpenting dari Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana Belanda dan Padanannya dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana Indonesia, PT. Gramedia Pustaka Utama, Jakarta.
16) Kerugian Negara akibat Korupsi Capai Rp62,93 Triliun pada 2021, https://dataindonesia.id/ragam/detail/kerugian-negara-akibat-korupsi-capai-rp6293-triliun-pada-2021, diakses 26 Juli 2024.
17) Lilik Mulyadi, 2007, Pembalikan Beban Pembuktian Tindak Pidana Korupsi, PT. Alumni, Bandung.
18) Mahrus Ali, 2012, Dasar-Dasar Hukum Pidana, Sinar Grafika, Jakarta.
19) Romli Atmasasmita, 2002, Korupsi, Good Governance dan Komisi Anti Korupsi Indonesia, Badan Pembinaan Hukum Nasional Departemen Kehakiman dan Hak Asasi Manusia Republik Indonesia, Jakarta.
20) Syamsa Adisasmita DEA, “Definisi Korupsi Menurut Perspektif Hukum dan E-Annaouncement Untuk Tata Kelola Pemerintahan Yang Lebih Baik, Terbuka, Trasparan dan Akuntable”, Makalah, tanggal 23 Agustus 2016.