Bahari Sanjaya, Muladi Muladi, Ratna Kumala Sari, Hari Sutra Disemadi
{"title":"Inkonsistensi Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi dalam Peraturan Perundang-Undangan di Luar KUHP","authors":"Bahari Sanjaya, Muladi Muladi, Ratna Kumala Sari, Hari Sutra Disemadi","doi":"10.15294/PANDECTA.V15I2.23013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"KUHP tidak mengakui korporasi sebagai subjek hukum karena KUHP masih menganut asas “ universitas delinquere non potest ”. Pengaturan pertanggungjawaban pidana terhadap korporasi hanya dikenal dalam peraturan perundang-undangan di luar KUHP. Namun, peraturan tersebut menimbulkan ketidakkonsistenan dalam regulasi pertanggungjawaban pidana korporasi seperti dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 tentang Pemberantasan Korupsi (UU Tipikor) )dan Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2010 tentang Pencegahan dan Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Pencucian Uang (UU PPTPPU) yang mengakibatkan ketidakseragaman dalam pertanggungjawaban pidana terhadap korporasi. Tujuan penelitian ini untuk menganalisis dan mendeskripsikan penyebab dan dampak inkonsistensi pengaturan pertanggungjawaban pidana korporasi dalam UU Tipikor dan UU PPTPPU. Pendekatan yang digunakan untuk mengkaji permasalahan ini yaitu pendekatan perundang-undangan. Penelitian ini menunjukan adanya inkonsistensi pengaturan pertanggungjawaban pidana terhadap korporasi dalam UU Tipikor dan UU PPTPPU, karena di dalam KUHP masih tidak mengenal korporasi sebagai subjek hukum pidana sehingga dampaknya adanya disparitas putusan hakim dalam menjatuhkan putusan terhadap korporasi yang melakukan tindak pidana. The Criminal Code does not recognize corporations as a legal subject because the Criminal Code still adheres to the principle of \"university delinquent non-potest\". Criminal liability arrangements for corporations are only known in-laws and regulations outside the Criminal Code. However, these regulations cause inconsistencies in the regulation of corporate criminal liability as in Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning Corruption Eradication (Corruption Law) and Law Number 8 of 2010 concerning Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering (PPTPPU Law) which results in non-uniformity in criminal liability towards the corporation. This study aims to analyze and describe the causes and effects of inconsistencies in the regulation of corporate criminal responsibility in the Corruption Law and the PPTPPU Law. The approach used to study this problem is the statutory approach. This study shows that there are inconsistencies in the regulation of criminal liability towards corporations in the Corruption Law and the PPTPPU Law. The character of economic crime is increasingly complex, which affects the regulation of corporate criminal responsibility, including politics and the background of the birth of laws in the economic field. The impact is a disparity judge's decision in issuing a decision against a corporation that commits a criminal offense.","PeriodicalId":30516,"journal":{"name":"Pandecta Research Law Journal","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pandecta Research Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15294/PANDECTA.V15I2.23013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
Abstract
KUHP tidak mengakui korporasi sebagai subjek hukum karena KUHP masih menganut asas “ universitas delinquere non potest ”. Pengaturan pertanggungjawaban pidana terhadap korporasi hanya dikenal dalam peraturan perundang-undangan di luar KUHP. Namun, peraturan tersebut menimbulkan ketidakkonsistenan dalam regulasi pertanggungjawaban pidana korporasi seperti dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 tentang Pemberantasan Korupsi (UU Tipikor) )dan Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2010 tentang Pencegahan dan Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Pencucian Uang (UU PPTPPU) yang mengakibatkan ketidakseragaman dalam pertanggungjawaban pidana terhadap korporasi. Tujuan penelitian ini untuk menganalisis dan mendeskripsikan penyebab dan dampak inkonsistensi pengaturan pertanggungjawaban pidana korporasi dalam UU Tipikor dan UU PPTPPU. Pendekatan yang digunakan untuk mengkaji permasalahan ini yaitu pendekatan perundang-undangan. Penelitian ini menunjukan adanya inkonsistensi pengaturan pertanggungjawaban pidana terhadap korporasi dalam UU Tipikor dan UU PPTPPU, karena di dalam KUHP masih tidak mengenal korporasi sebagai subjek hukum pidana sehingga dampaknya adanya disparitas putusan hakim dalam menjatuhkan putusan terhadap korporasi yang melakukan tindak pidana. The Criminal Code does not recognize corporations as a legal subject because the Criminal Code still adheres to the principle of "university delinquent non-potest". Criminal liability arrangements for corporations are only known in-laws and regulations outside the Criminal Code. However, these regulations cause inconsistencies in the regulation of corporate criminal liability as in Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning Corruption Eradication (Corruption Law) and Law Number 8 of 2010 concerning Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering (PPTPPU Law) which results in non-uniformity in criminal liability towards the corporation. This study aims to analyze and describe the causes and effects of inconsistencies in the regulation of corporate criminal responsibility in the Corruption Law and the PPTPPU Law. The approach used to study this problem is the statutory approach. This study shows that there are inconsistencies in the regulation of criminal liability towards corporations in the Corruption Law and the PPTPPU Law. The character of economic crime is increasingly complex, which affects the regulation of corporate criminal responsibility, including politics and the background of the birth of laws in the economic field. The impact is a disparity judge's decision in issuing a decision against a corporation that commits a criminal offense.