Article Sidebar

Submitted
June 8, 2021
Accepted
August 10, 2021
Published
August 25, 2021
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 444 Download : 476

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the application of participating perpetrator in court decisions in corruption cases. The research question is whether the double intention as a condition for participating perpetrator in the decision of a corruption case is fulfilled? As a normative legal research, the study in this research is focused on the ratio of four decisions on corruption cases, especially the concept of criminal participation. The results of the study concluded that the double-intentional evidence as a condition for participating perpetrator so was ignored by the panel of judges. The role of involvement of each defendant in the offense of participating perpetrator in the ongoing decision is not described. The judge is not even able to distinguish between the conditions of a person as a perpetrator and the participating perpetrator. In the decisions studied, the judges also mixed the concepts of ordering, advocating, and participating in committing criminal acts of corruption. The judge's inaccuracy in the use of double intention resulted in the emergence of an unfair sentence. Therefore, this study suggests that the Supreme Court should make guidelines for the application of participating perpetrator in corruption cases.

Keywords

Corruption case double intention participation to crime ratio dedicendi

Article Details

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

How to Cite
Setiawan, M. A., & Ali, M. (2021). When Double Intention Ignored: A Study of Corruption Judicial Decisions. Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM, 28(3), 459–480. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol28.iss3.art1
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Books
  2. Adji, Indriyanto Seno, Korupsi Kebijakan Aparatur Negara dan Hukum Pidana, CV. Diadit Media, Jakarta, 2006.
  3. J, Remmelink, Hukum Pidana: Komentar atas Pasal-pasal Terpenting dalam Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Pidana Belanda dan Padanannya dalam Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Pidana Indonesia, Gramedia Pustaka, Jakarta, 2003.
  4. Minarno, Nur Basuki, Penyalahgunaan Wewenang dan Tindak Pidana Korupsi dalam Pengelolaan Keuangan Daerah, Cetk. Kedua, Laksbang Mediatama, Yogyakarta, 2009.
  5. Moeljanto, Hukum Pidana Delik-delik Percobaan Delik-delik Penyertaan, Bina Aksara, Jakarta, 1983.
  6. Saleh, Roeslan, Tentang Delik Penyertaan, Universitas Islam Riau, Pekanbaru, 1989.
  7. Syamsu, Muhammad Ainul, Pergeseran Turut Serta Melakukan dalam Ajaran Penyertaan Telaah Kritis Berdasarkan Teori Pemisahan Tindak Pidana dan Pertanggungjawaban Pidana, Prenada Media, Jakarta, 2014.
  8. Journals and Article
  9. Agusman Heri, “Analisis Yuridis terhadap Tindak Pidana Penyertaan Pembunuhan (Studi Putusan MA Nomor 2462/Pid.B/2017/PN Medan”, Jurnal Hukum Responsif, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2018.
  10. Ahmad Rijali, “Analisis Data Kualitatif”, Jurnal Alhadharah, Vol. 17, No. 33, 2018.
  11. Alifia Swatika Maharani, “Penyertaan dalam Delik Jabatan pada Tindak Pidana Korupsi”, Jurist-Diction, Vol. 3, No. 4, 2020.
  12. Artidjo Alkostar, Suap dan Memperdagangkan Pengaruh pada Tindak Pidana Korupsi, makalah disampaikan pada Studium Generale, Fakultas Hukum Universitas Islam Indonesia, 2019.
  13. Basir Rohromana, “Penerapan Ajaran Turut Serta dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi”, Yuridika, Vol. 32, No. 2, 2017
  14. David A Sadoff, “How Law Enforcement Cooperation abroad is Pivotal to Sustainable Development at Home”, Boston University International Law Journal, 2017.
  15. Depri Liber Sonata, “Metode Penelitian Hukum Normatif dan Empiris: Karakteristik Khas dari Metode Penelitian Hukum”, Fiat Justisia Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2014.
  16. Endi Nurinda Putra, “Penerapan Ajaran Penyertaan dalam Tindak Pidanakecelakaan Lalu Lintas yang Dilakukan oleh Anak”, Jurnal Idea Hukum, Vol 1, No. 1, 2015.
  17. Fahrurrozi dan Gare, Syamsul Bahri M, “Sistem Pemidanaan dalam Penyertaan Tindak Pidana Menurut KUHP”, Media Keadilan Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Vol. 10 No. 1, 2019.
  18. Firmansyah Hilipito, ”Pertanggungjawaban Pidana terhadap Turut Serta (Medeplegen) Melakukan Tindak Pidana Menurut KUHP”, Lex Privatum, Vol. 4, No. 5, 2016.
  19. Franco Marcello Moningka, “Penerapan Ajaran Deelneming dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi”, Lex Crimen, Vol. 7, No. 5, 2018.
  20. Heba Shams, “The Fight against Extraterritorial Corruption and the Use of Money Laundering Control”, Law and Business Review of the Americas, 2001.
  21. Herman Sitompul, “Penyertaan dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi”, Jurnal Hukum dan Keadilan, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2019.
  22. I Wayan Joniarta, “Banalitas Korupsi di Indonesia (Suatu Tinjauan dari Perspektif Budaya)”, Jurnal Ilmiah Dinamika Sosial, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2018.
  23. Irena Ulfa, “Pembuktian Penganjur Dalam Tindak Pidana Pembunuhan Anak”, Media Iuris, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2018.
  24. J. Danang Widoyoko, “Reproduksi Korupsi: Studi Kasus Jaksa Urip Tri Gunawan”, Masalah-Masalah Hukum, Vol. 42, No.1, 2013.
  25. John D Becker, “NGO’s with an Attitude and Bayonets: A Consideration of Transnational Criminal Organizations”, Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, 2003.
  26. Kevin E. Davis, Guillermo Jorge, Maíra R. Machado, “Transnational Anticorruption Law in Action: Cases from Argentina and Brazil”, Law and Social Inquiry, 2015.
  27. Latifa Aulianisya, “Tinjauan Terhadap Ajaran Turut Serta dalam Tindak Pidana Pembunuhan pada Perkara nomor:85/PID/B/2012/PN.BRB”, Al-Qisthu, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2018.
  28. Linda Ulfa, Mohd Din, dan Dahlan, “Penerapan Ajaran Turut Serta Kasus Korupsi dikaitkan Teori Pertanggungjawaban Pidana”, Kanun Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Vol. 19 No. 2, 2017.
  29. Masyhudi, “Membangun Sistem Integritas untuk Pemberantasan Korupsi dalam Sistem Peradilan Pidana”, Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum, 26, 1, 2019.
  30. Mochtar Touwe, Iqbal Sultan, dan Hasrullah, “Investigasi Majalah Berita Mingguan Tempo dalam Kasus Korupsi Megaproyek Sarana Olahraga Hambalang”, Jurnal Analisis, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2015.
  31. Muhammad Musa, “Penalaran Hakim Menerapkan Ajaran Penyertaan dalam Putusan Tindak Pidana Korupsi Pada Bank Riau-Kepri”, Masalah-Masalah Hukum, Vol. 46, No. 4, 2017.
  32. Nedi Gunawan Situmorang, “Kedudukan Hukum (Legal Standing) Keterangan Saksi Testimonium De Auditu sebagai Alat Bukti yang Sah Pra dan Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor: 65/Puu-VIII/2010”, Pakuan Law Review, Vol. 6 No. 2, 2020.
  33. Nicken Sarwo Rin, “Penyalahgunaan Kewenangan Administrasi dalam Undang Undang Tindak Pidana Korupsi”, Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2018.
  34. Patrick X Delaney, “Transnational Corruption: Regulation Across Borders”, Virginia Journal of International Law, 2007.
  35. Reza Hidayat, “Penyertaan dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi (Telaah terhadap Kelalaian dalam Penyertaan untuk Melakukan Tindak Pidana Korupsi)”, e-Jurnal Katalogis, Vol. 3, No. 12, 2015.
  36. Rina Sovianti, “Analisis Framing: Pemberitaan Penangkapan Kasus Korupsi E-KTP Setya Novanto di Media Daring Detik.Com dan Kompas.Com”, Jurnal Komunikasi, Masyarakat dan Keamanan, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2019
  37. Vidya Prahassacitta, “Tinjauan atas Kebijakan Hukum Pidana terhadap Penyuapan di Sektor Privat dalam Hukum Nasional Indonesia:Suatu Perbandingan dengan Singapura, Malaysia Dan Korea Selatan”, Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan, Vol. 47, No. 4, 2017.
  38. Court Decision
  39. Bengkulu Court Decision, Decision No. 45/Pid.Sus/TPK/2017/PN.BGL
  40. Central Jakarta Court Decision, Decision No. 103/Pid.Sus-TPK/2019/PN.Jkt.Pst.
  41. Central Jakarta Court Decision, Decision No. 123/Pid.Sus/TPK/2017/ PN.JKT.PST.
  42. South Jakarta District Court Decision, Decision No. 90/Pid.Sus/TPK/2018/ PN.JKT.PST.
  43. Supreme Court Decision, Decision No.1219 K/Pid.Sus/2018.
  44. Supremecourt Decision, Decision No. 2933 K/Pid.Sus/2018.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

<< < 1 2