REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CRIMINAL SANCTIONS IN CORRUPTION CASE (CASE STUDY OF DECISION REG.24/PID.SUS.TPK/2020/PN PAL)

Abstract

The formulation of the problem in this study is 1) How is the application of criminal sanctions against corruption based on Reg.24/Pid.Sus.TPK/2020/PN PAL?. 2) What is the basis for the judge's consideration in determining the defendant's guilt in a corruption crime based on Reg.24/Pid.Sus.TPK/2020/PN PAL?. This study aims to find out the application of criminal law to defendants of corruption based on the decision of Reg.24/Pid.Sus.TPK/2020/PN PAL. To find out the judge's considerations in determining the defendant's guilt in the criminal act of corruption based on the decision of Reg.24/Pid.Sus. TPK/2020/PN PAL. This research uses normative law research methods (doctrinal legal analysis). The conclusions in this study are The application of sanctions in the Corruption Crime of Decision Number Reg.24/Pid.Sus.TPK/2020/PN Pal. It is not appropriate that the Panel of Judges stated that the defendant was proven guilty as stated in the primary charge as regulated in Article 2 paragraph (1) jo. Article 18 of Law no. 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law no. 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption. The direct indictment is not appropriate because the defendant's actions in the element of a criminal act of corruption are abusing the authority regulated in Article 3 of Law no. 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law no. 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Corruption fulfills the element of the offense as stated in the subsidiary indictment. The judge's consideration in deciding on the criminal act of corruption committed by the defendant as stated in the decision Number Reg.24/Pid.Sus.TPK/2020/PN Pal is not appropriate because it is under legal consideration by the judge. 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption. The direct indictment is not relevant because the defendant's actions in the element of a criminal act of corruption are abusing the authority regulated in Article 3 of Law no. 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law no. 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Corruption fulfills the element of the offense as stated in the subsidiary indictment. The judge's consideration in deciding on the criminal act of corruption committed by the defendant as stated in the decision Number Reg.24/Pid.Sus.TPK/2020/PN Pal is not appropriate because it is under legal consideration by the judge. 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Corruption. The direct indictment is not relevant because the defendant's actions in the element of a criminal act of corruption are abusing the authority regulated in Article 3 of Law no. 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law no. 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Corruption fulfills the element of the offense as stated in the subsidiary indictment. The judge's consideration in deciding on the criminal act of corruption committed by the defendant as stated in the decision Number Reg.24/Pid.Sus.TPK/2020/PN Pal is not appropriate because it is under legal consideration by the judge. 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Corruption fulfills the offense element stated in the subsidiary indictment. The judge's consideration in deciding on the criminal act of corruption committed by the defendant as stated in the decision Number Reg.24/Pid.Sus.TPK/2020/PN Pal is not appropriate because it is under legal consideration by the judge. 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Corruption fulfills the offense element stated in the subsidiary indictment. The judge's consideration in deciding on the criminal act of corruption committed by the defendant as stated in the decision Number Reg.24/Pid.Sus.TPK/2020/PN Pal is not appropriate because it is under legal consideration by the judge.