Formulation of Criminal Law Calculation Regarding Insufficient Compensation Money in Corruption Cases
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25041/corruptio.v4i1.2976Abstract
So far, corrupt convicts continue serving full sentences even though they have paid part of the replacement money. At the same time, there is no specific formulation regarding calculating the amount of compensation paid for the length of imprisonment for replacement money that needs to be paid more. This is certainly a problem for the prosecutor's office as law enforcement officers in Indonesia to eradicate corruption cases. So that a special formulation is needed in calculating the replacement money, which is then ratified in legal regulation; based on these legal issues, this research aims to examine the perspective of the formulation of criminal law calculations on insufficient replacement of money in corruption cases. This research uses a normative research methodology and examines written law from various perspectives, including theory, history, philosophy, comparison, structure and composition, scope and material, consistency, general explanation and article by article, formality, and binding power of a law-law. This research includes primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials as data sources. Data processing includes data verification, data marking, data reconstruction, and data systematization. Furthermore, a qualitative descriptive analysis was carried out on the data. The study results indicate that the calculation of the criminal law on insufficient replacement money in corruption cases is based on a proportionality or comparability approach.
Keywords:
Corruption, Reformulation, SubstitutionReferences
Abidin, Zamhari. Pengertian dan Asas Hukum Pidana Dalam Schema (Bagan) dan Synopsis (Catatan Singkat). Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia, 1986.
Achjani Zulfa, Eva. Pergeseran Paradigma Pemidanaan, cetakan ke 1. Bandung: Lubuk Agung, 2011.
Bagaric, Mirko. Punishment and Sentencing a Rational Approach. First Published. United Kingdom: Cavendish Publishing Limited, 2001.
Eide, Asbjorn (eds.). Hak Ekonomi, Sosial dan Budaya, terj. Rini Adriani. Stockholm: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers dan Brill Academic Publishers, 2001.
Gross, Hyman. Crime and Punishment. Newyork: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Hudson, Barbara. Justice Through Punishment. First Published. London: Macmillan Education, 1987.
Kartanegara, Satochid. Hukum Pidana Bagian I. Jakarta: Balai Lektur Mahasiswa, 1953-1954.
Rosidah, Nikmah dan Mashuril Anwar. Penanganan Perkara Tindak Pidana Korupsi Dengan SUbjek Hukum Korporasi. Yogyakarta: Suluh Media, 2021.
Alam Siddiquee, Noore dan Habib Zafarullah. “Absolute power, absolute venality: The politics of corruption and anti-corruption in Malaysia”, Public Integrity 24, no. 1 (2022): 1-17, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2020.1830541.
Amirullah, “Tindak Pidana Korupsi Dan Sanksi Pidana Mati Perspektif Keadilan Hukum,” Al-Daulah: Jurnal Hukum Dan Perundangan Islam 3, no. 2 (2013): 323-355, DOI: https://doi.org/10.15642/ad.2013.3.2.323-355.
Ayasha Soesman, Diandra, “Penolakan Tuntutan Pidana Pembayaran Uang Pengganti Oleh Hakim Terhadap Tindak Pidana Korupsi (Suatu Penelitian Di Pengadilan Tindak Pidana Korupsi Banda Aceh),” JIM Bidang Hukum Pidana 2, no. 2, (2018): 430-440.
Fatah, Abdul dkk., “Kajian Yuridis Penerapan Unsur Merugikan Keuangan Negara Dalam Penegakan Hukum Tindak Pidana Korupsi,” Diponegoro Law Journal 6, no. 1, (2017): 1-15.
FJC Van Ginneken, Esther dan David Hayes, “Just’punishment? Offenders’ views on the meaning and severity of punishment”, Criminology & Criminal Justice 17, no. 1 (2017): 62-78, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1748895816654204.
Genova Damanik, Kristwan, “Antara Uang Pengganti Dan Kerugian Negara Dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi,” Masalah-Masalah Hukum 45, no. 1, (2016): 1-10, DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.45.1.2016.1-10.
Julyano, Mario and Aditya Yuli Sulistyawan, “Pemahaman Terhadap Asas Kepastian Hukum Melalui Konstruksi Penalaran Positivisme Hukum,” Jurnal Crepido 1, no. 1, (2019):13-22, DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/CREPIDO.1.1.13-22.
Mahmud, Ade, “Dinamika Pembayaran Uang Pengganti Dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi,” Jurnal Hukum Mimbar Justitia 3, No. 2, (2017): 137-156, DOI: https://doi.org/10.35194/jhmj.v3i2.216.
N. Berman, Mitchell, “Proportionality, Constraint, and Culpability”, Criminal Law and Philosophy 15, no. 3 (2021): 373-391, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-021-09589-2.
Parchomiuk, Jerzy, “Abuse of discretionary powers in Administrative Law. Evolution of the judicial review models: from “administrative morality” to the principle of proportionality”, Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi 26, no. 3 (2018): 453-478.
Pilli, Inggrid, “Hukuman Tambahan Dalam Putusan Pengadilan Tindak Pidana Korupsi,” Lex Crimen 4, No. 6, (2015): 169-176.
Pratama, Rizky dkk., “Criminal Compensation Money Against Corporations,” Jurnal Yudisial 13, No. 2, (2020): 160, DOI: https://doi.org/10.29123/jy.v13i2.366.
Rambey, Guntur, “Pengembalian Kerugian Negara Dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi Melalui Pembayaran Uang Pengganti Dan Denda,” De Lega Lata: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 1, no. 1, (2016): 137-161, DOI: https://doi.org/10.30596/DLL.V1I1.785.
Sadigov, Turkhan, “Psychological dimension of corruption: How are citizens likely to support anti-corruption policies in Azerbaijan?”, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 38, no. 5 484-508, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-10-2017-0133 .(2018).
Wattimena, Husin, “Perkembangan Tindak Pidana Korupsi Masa Kini Dan Pengembalian Kerugian Keuangan Negara,” TAHKIM 12, no. 2 (2017): 77-78, DOI: https://doi.org/10.33477/THK.V12I2.39.
Wiranata, Aga, “Kendala Jaksa Dalam Eksekusi Pidana Tambahan Uang Pengganti Pada Perkara Tindak Pidana Korupsi (Studi Kasus Korupsi Di Kejaksaan Tinggi Jawa-Timur),” Jurnal Hukum UB Februari, (2014): 1-21.
Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP).
Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi.
Peraturan Mahkamah Agung (PERMA) Nomor 5 Tahun 2014 tentang Pidana Tambahan Uang Pengganti dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi
Surat Edaran Nomor 004/JA/8/1988 tentang Pedoman atau Petunjuk Penanganan Kasus Korupsi.
Surat Edaran Mahkamah Agung (SEMA) Nomor 4 Tahun 2016 tentang Pemberlakuan Rumusan Hasil Rapat Pleno Kamar Mahkamah Agung Tahun 2016 Sebagai Pedoman Pelaksanaan Tugas Bagi Pengadilan.
Mardanai, “KPK Incar Aset Setya Novanto Karena Belum Lunasi Uang Pengganti E-KTP USD 7,3 Juta | Merdeka.Com,” accessed September 4, 2021, https://www.merdeka.com/peristiwa/kpk-incar-aset-setya-novanto-karena-belum-lunasi-uang-pengganti-e-ktp-usd-73-juta.html.
Tabelak, Donny, “Terpidana Korupsi Belum Bayar Uang Pengganti, Ini Rencana Jaksa…,” accessed September 4, 2021, https://radarbali.jawapos.com/read/2019/08/05/149587/terpidana-korupsi-belum-bayar-uang-pengganti-ini-rencana-jaksa.
Tim Detikcom, “Kejari Jakbar Terima Uang Pengganti Rp 698 Juta Di Kasus Perangkap Sampah,” accessed July 1, 2021, https://news.detik.com/berita/d-5147090/kejari-jakbar-terima-uang-pengganti-rp-698-juta-di-kasus-perangkap-sampah.
Downloads
Total Abstract Views: 33 |
Total Downloads: 38
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright
Copyright (c) 2023 by the Auhtor(s) Published by Development Centre Research of Law and Scientific Publication on behalf of the Faculty of Law, Universitas Lampung
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
