Analysis of the Acquittal by Judges in Corruption Crimes (Case Study of the Supreme Court Decision Number 2298 K/Pid.Sus/2019)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37010/postulat.v2i2.1738Keywords:
corruption, legal sanctions, judge's considerationAbstract
One of the diseases that continues to afflict Indonesia is corruption, perpetrated by various groups, including the legislative, executive, law enforcement, and bureaucratic sectors, from the central government down to the regional and village levels. Corruption is considered an extraordinary crime due to its massive impact in both the short and long term. Not only does it harm the state, but it also brings suffering to the people. The formulation in this research is: how is the application of criminal sanctions against perpetrators of corruption crimes? And how does the judge's reasoning lead to an acquittal in the Supreme Court decision number 2298 K/Pid.Sus/2019 on a corruption case? The research method used is a normative juridical approach. The normative juridical approach is a method based on primary legal materials by examining theories, concepts, legal principles, and regulations related to this research. The findings of this study reveal that criminal law governing corruption crimes is derived from special criminal law, namely Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning Amendments to Law Number 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption. The types of criminal penalties that judges can impose on perpetrators of corruption crimes include the death penalty if committed under "certain circumstances." Circumstances that can be grounds for increased penalties include corruption involving: (1) funds allocated for disaster relief, (2) national natural disasters, (3) the handling of widespread social unrest, (4) efforts to mitigate the economic and monetary crisis, and (5) repeat offenses. In addition to the death penalty, corruption perpetrators may also face imprisonment and fines.Regarding the Supreme Court decision number 2298 K/Pid.Sus/2019, which acquitted the defendant in the case of the embezzlement of Bank Mandiri funds amounting to IDR 1.8 trillion, the author argues that the ruling is not appropriate. This is due to the defendant's negligence in carrying out their duties, which resulted in state losses of IDR 1.8 trillion. Additionally, a report from the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) revealed findings of state losses amounting to IDR 1.83 trillion. The BPK found irregularities in the credit disbursement by Bank Mandiri's Commercial Banking Center (CBC) Bandung 1. The irregularities were found in the process of application, analysis, approval, use, and repayment of the credit.
References
Hartani, E. (2009). Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.
Syamsudin, A. (2011). Tindak Pidana Khusus. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.
Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP).
Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi.
RMOL. (2018, May 28). Kejagung Sita Aset Pabrik Hingga Mobil Rp 600 Miliar. https://rmol.id/read/2018/05/28/341738/kejagung-sita-aset-pabrik-hingga-mobil-rp-600-miliar
Berita Satu. (2023, April 5). Indeks Persepsi Korupsi 2023: Indonesia Nomor 6 di ASEAN. https://www.beritasatu.com/nasional/2797045/indeks-persepsi-korupsi-2023-indonesia-nomor-6-di-asean
Soekanto, S., & Mamudji, S. (2004). Penelitian Hukum Normatif: Suatu Tinjauan Singkat. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.