Bahari Sanjaya, Muladi Muladi, Ratna Kumala Sari, Hari Sutra Disemadi
{"title":"根据刑法,公司的刑事责任不一致","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
KUHP不承认这家公司是一个法律主题,因为KUHP仍然遵循“delinquere university不potest”的原则。对该公司的刑事责任安排只在刑法以外的情况下才为人所知。然而,这项政策引起矛盾20号法案中规定刑事责任公司像2001年关于根除腐败(Tipikor法案)自2010年8号法律关于预防和根除重罪(PPTPPU法案)的洗钱计划导致ketidakseragaman公司的刑事责任。本研究的目的是分析和描述企业犯罪责任安排在《弯曲法》和《PPTPPU法》中的原因和影响。审查这一问题的方法是法律手段。该研究表明,在《典型法典》和《PPTPPU法》中,对企业的刑事责任管理存在不一致之处,因为即使在KUHP内部,媒体仍然不知道这家公司是刑事法的主体,这对法官在对犯罪公司作出裁决时的判断判断是不一致的。犯罪代码不承认任何合法的公司,因为犯罪代码仍然引用了“大学delinquent非potest”原则。犯罪行为准则只知道在犯罪行为准则之外的法律规定。regulation)》,但是,这些regulations因为inconsistencies在2001年的美国公司刑事责任的法律是20号concerning Corruption Eradication劳(Corruption)和8号法律》2010年concerning预防and Eradication of Money Laundering (PPTPPU法律)哪种results in non-uniformity在刑事责任向《有限公司。这一研究旨在分析和描述腐败法律和PPTPPU法律中不一致行为的原因和影响。习惯研究这个问题就是不赞成。这项研究表明,在腐败法律和PPTPPU法律的犯罪责任规定中存在不一致的存在。经济犯罪的特点是越来越复杂,这影响了企业犯罪责任、政治因素和经济犯罪领域的发展背景。影响法官对一家犯罪公司的判决是有根据的。
Inkonsistensi Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Korporasi dalam Peraturan Perundang-Undangan di Luar KUHP
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.