Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Hasil Pencarian

Ditemukan 66220 dokumen yang sesuai dengan query
cover
Adinda Rifdahtama
"ABSTRAK
Dalam perkara pidana maupun perdata, terkadang masih terdapat kekeliruan bagaimana mengklasifikasi perbuatan seseorang, khususnya perbuatan Direksi, dimana perbuatan tersebut dikatakan pidana, dimana perbuatan tersebut dikatakan perdata, cukup sulit untuk memisahkan dua hal yang berbeda tersebut, karena sejauh ini belum ada aturan yang jelas mengatur hal tersebut. Sebenarnya telah cukup jelas di mata para penegak hukum untuk membedakannya, tetapi masih terdapat ketidakpastian hukum dalam mengklasifikasi perbuatan direksi di dalam beberapa putusan. Di beberapa putusan terdapat perbuatan Direksi yang sebenarnya perdata tetapi dikategorikan sebagai perbuatan pidana, dan sebaliknya. Bahkan hal tersebut telah diketahui oleh salah satu penegak hukum bahwa memang terdapat kasus pidana, namun menjadi perdata, dan sebaliknya. Hal tersebut akan ditinjau lebih lanjut di dalam skripsi ini. Metode penelitian ini menggunakan wawancara sebagai pelengkap yang kemudian akan disesuaikan dengan peraturan perundang-undangan, teori, atau ajaran-ajaran yang ada.

ABSTRACT
In classifying one rsquo s action, fallacy is often faced both in criminal case and civil case, especially for Directors rsquo action, in what circumstances an action can be classified as criminal action or civil case, it is difficult to strictly separate the two due to lack of regulations that clearly regulate that issue. From the perspective of legal enforcer, the difference between criminal case and civil case has been clear, however the legal uncertainty still can be found in several court decision in classifying the Director rsquo s action. In several court decisions, there is a Director rsquo s action that should be fallen under civil case but decided that it is classified as criminal case, and vice versa. Even the legal enforcer is aware that certain criminal case is classified as civil case, and vice versa. The abovementioned issue will be analyzed further in this research. This research method uses interview as the supplementary material that will be analyzed in accordance with the prevailing laws, theory, or doctrines."
2017
S68413
UI - Skripsi Membership  Universitas Indonesia Library
cover
Hellena
"ABSTRAK
Notaris sebagai pejabat umum mempunyai kewenangan khusus yang diamanahkan oleh Negara dan tidak dapat digantikan oleh profesi lain atau pejabat umum lainnya. Bila Notaris melakukan penyalahgunaan atas kewenangan yang dipercayakan kepadanya, maka akan timbul rasa ketidakpercayaan dari masyarakat dan dapat berindikasi terjadinya perbuatan pidana dan perdata. Hal ini tidak hanya berdampak pada Notaris yang melakukan perbuatan penyalahgunaan kewenangan tersebut, namun berdampak pada seluruh Notaris di seluruh Indonesia. Oleh karena itu, Notaris dalam menjalankan jabatannya harus dapat bersikap profesional dengan dilandasi kepribadian yang luhur dan sena.

ABSTRACT
Notary as a public official having special authoritation mandated by the State and can not be replaced by other professions or other public officials. When Notary misuse of authority entrusted to him, then there will be a sense of distrust of the public and may indicate the occurrence of criminal and civil actions. This not only affects the Notary committing the abuse of power, but the impact on all Notaries throughout Indonesia. Therefore, Notary in running position must be able to be professional with based lofty personality and always implement the law, while upholding the Code of Notaries."
Jakarta: Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia, 2014
T42133
UI - Tesis Membership  Universitas Indonesia Library
cover
Kartika Citrananda
"Tesis ini membahas mengenai pertanggungjawaban korporasi terhadap putusan kasus perdata maupun kasus tindak pidana korupsi yang saling bertentangan yang dilakukan oleh karyawan Bank Mega bekerjasama dengan pihak PT Elnusa sebagai nasabah dan pihak ketiga dengan mengatasnamakan korporasi tersebut menurut peraturan perundang-undangan di Indonesia. Penulisan tesis ini menggunakan metode penilitian yuridis normatif yaitu dengan studi dokumen dan studi kepustakaan dikaitkan dengan Putusan baik Pidana maupun Perdata Kasus Bank Mega VS PT Elnusa.

This thesis discusses the corporate responsibility for the crimes committed by employees in the name of the corporation's in accordance with the laws and regulations in Indonesia. This thesis research method is the study of normative by document and literature study and was associated with a Surpreme Court case Bank Mega VS PT Elnusa."
Depok: Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia, 2015
T-Pdf
UI - Tesis Membership  Universitas Indonesia Library
cover
Raisya Majory
"ABSTRAK
Tulisan ini menganalisis bagaimana peraturan perundang-undangan terkait lingkungan hidup di Indonesia dan di negara lain mengatur mengenai pertanggungjawaban pidana korporasi dan pengurus korporasi. Di Indonesia, ketentuan dalam peraturan perundang-undangan serta putusan pengadilan masih kerap gagal dalam membedakan pertanggungjawaban pidana untuk korporasi dan pengurus korporasi. Dalam praktiknya, pengurus korporasi dapat dipidana atas tindakan korporasi tanpa dibuktikan adanya kesalahan dan bahkan tanpa dijadikan terdakwa terlebih dahulu. Padahal, terdapat teori yang berbeda untuk membebankan pertanggungjawaban pidana kepada korporasi dengan pengurus korporasi. Mengacu kepada peraturan perundang-undangan dan putusan Australia dan Inggris serta teori-teori pertanggungjawaban pidana, tulisan ini mengkritik peraturan perundang-undangan dan putusan pengadilan Indonesia terutama dalam lingkup pencemaran dan perusakan lingkungan. Seharusnya pengurus korporasi hanya dapat dipidana apabila terlibat dalam pencemaran lingkungan yang dilakukan oleh korporasi, dan bukan semata-mata karena jabatannya sebagai direktur dalam korporasi. Tulisan ini menyarankan diperjelasnya ketentuan pertanggungjawaban pidana korporasi dan pengurus korporasi terutama terkait dengan lingkungan hidup.

ABSTRACT
This thesis analyses how environmental regulations in Indonesia and other States respectively regulate corporate criminal liability and director 39 s criminal liability. Indonesian regulations and courts often fail to distinguish between corporate criminal liability and director 39 s criminal liability. In practice, director 39 s may be held guilty without being at fault or even without being made a defendant for a corporate crime. Based on Australian and English regulations and courts decisions as well as theories on criminal liability, this writing criticizes Indonesian regulation and court decisions especially with regards to environmental pollution. A director should only be convicted if the director is involved in the environmental pollution done by the corporation, and not merely because of his or her position as the director of the corporation. This writing provides a recommendation in light of the uncertainty surrounding corporate criminal liability and director 39 s criminal liability especially in the context of environmental law in the hope to provide clarity on the matter. "
2018
S-Pdf
UI - Skripsi Membership  Universitas Indonesia Library
cover
Dewi Susanti
"Keabsahan dan implikasi perbuatan hukum yang dilakukan oleh pihak yang terkait perkara pidana yang dituangkan melalui akta notaris yang merupakan akta otentik dengan kekuatan pembuktian yang sempurna dan mengikat para pihak. Pasal 3 KUHPerdata menegaskan bahwa tidak ada satu pun hukuman yang dapat menghilangkan keperdataan seseorang. Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa walaupun seseorang yang terkait perkara pidana bahkan ditahan sekalipun tetap dapat menjalankan hak keperdataannya dalam kehidupan bermasyarakat namun tentunya tidaklah dapat dilakukan dengan bebas atau dengan kata lain lingkup hak keperdataannya adalah terbatas. Misalnya dalam perkara tindak pidana korupsi, hak keperdataan seseorang menjadi dibatasi terutama untuk melakukan perbuatan hukum tertentu yang berkaitan dengan perkara pidana korupsi yang sedang dijalaninya. Organisasi profesi notaris dengan lembaga penegak hukum lainnya seperti lembaga kepolisian, penuntut umum, dan lembaga lainnya diperlukan adanya kerja sama dan perlu dibuatnya suatu nota kesepahaman khususnya mengenai akta notaris yang berisi perbuatan hukum yang dilakukan oleh pihak yang terkait perkara pidana, serta perlu lebih banyak diadakan sosialisasi mengenai prinsip kehati-hatian yang harus diterapkan oleh para notaris dalam menjalankan tugas jabatannya.

The validity and implication of legal act conducted by party involved in criminal case which implemented in deed of notary as an authentic deed with impeccable evidentiary function and binds the parties. Article 3 of Civil Code stipulates that no punishment can annul the civil right of any individual. This assertion concludes that although a person involved in criminal case or even imprisoned, such person still can perform his civil right in social life, yet, such right can`t be performed in a liberty manner or in other words, the civil right scope is limited. For instance, in corruption case, the civil right of person is limited particularly in certain legal acts related to the ongoing corruption case. Organization of Notary Profession and another law enforcement institutions such as police, prosecutor, and others need to cooperate and enter into Memorandum of Understanding particularly regarding deed of notary containing legal act conducted by party involved in criminal case, also, socialization of prudent principle implemented by the notary in performing their duties.
"
Depok: Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia, 2013
T32595
UI - Tesis Membership  Universitas Indonesia Library
cover
Setiawan Dwi Atmojo
"[ABSTRAK
Undang-Undang No. 40 Tahun 2007 tentang Perseroan Terbatas menetapkan 3 (tiga) organ perseroan yaitu Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham, Direksi, dan Dewan Komisaris. Direksi berfungsi pada pokoknya untuk bertanggung jawab penuh atas pengurusan perseroan untuk kepentingan perseroan sedangkan Dewan Komisaris berfungsi melakukan pengawasan umum dan/atau khusus sesuai dengan Anggaran Dasar serta memberi nasihat kepada Direksi. Pada setiap masa akhir jabatannya, Direksi mempertanggung jawabkan pengurusan perseroan dalam Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham, yang memiliki kewenangan yang tidak diberikan kepada Direksi atau Dewan Komisaris dalam batas yang ditentukan Undang-Undang dan/atau Anggaran Dasar perseroan. Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham kemudian memberikan pelunasan dan pembebasan tanggung jawab (acquit et de charge) kepada Direksi jika tindakan kepengurusan perseroan telah tercermin dalam laporan keuangan.
Pada tahun 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media sebagai perseroan yang menyediakan jasa internet (Internet Service Provider) menyelenggarakan jasanya melalui jaringan bergerak seluler milik PT Indosat Tbk melalui perjanjian kerjasama broadband. Kerjasama ini telah dipertanggung jawabkan dalam Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham pada tahun 2011 dan telah mendapatkan acquit et de charge kepada Direksi yang diwakili oleh Indar Atmanto selaku Direktur Utama. Kejaksaan Agung sebagai aparat penegak hukum mendakwa Indar Atmanto telah menggunakan frekuensi 2.1 GHz (3G) untuk menyelenggarakan jasa internetnya sehingga mengakibatkan kerugian negara sedangkan telah diketahui Direksi telah mendapatkan acquit et de charge dari Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham. Permasalahan hukum timbul atas pertanyaan sejauh mana acquit et de charge melindungi Direksi secara perdata dan pidana.

ABSTRACT
Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.
In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.
In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.
In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.
In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.
In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.;Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.
In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment., Act No. 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Company establishes three (3) organs of the company i.e. General Meeting of Shareholders, the Board of Directors, and the Board of Commissioners. Board of Directors take full responsibility for the management of the company for the benefit of the company, while the Board of Commissioners for performing general supervision and/or in accordance with the Articles of Association as well as giving advice to the Board of Directors. At the end of their period, the Board of Directors accountable to the shareholder or management in General Meeting of Shareholders, which has special authority which is not granted to the Board of Directors or Board of Commissioners within construed to the Act and/or the Articles of Association of the company. Afterward, General Meeting of Shareholders grant release and discharge of responsibility (acquit et de charge) to the company's Board of Directors if the duty has been reflected in the financial statements.
In 2006, PT Indosat Mega Media as an Internet Service Provider company, provide services through mobile cellular network owned by PT Indosat Tbk through broadband cooperation agreements. This cooperation has been accountable to the General Meeting of Shareholders in 2011 and the Board of Directors, represented by Indar Atmanto as CEO, has gained acquit et de charge. Attorney General as law enforcement officers indicted Indar Atmanto has been using 2.1 GHz frequency (3G) to provide internet services, therefore, resulting state loss while it is known that the Board of Directors has been obtained acquit et de charge from the General Meeting of Shareholders. Legal problem arisen is how acquit et de charge could protect the Board of Directors from the liability of civil lawsuit and the criminal indicment.]"
2015
T42888
UI - Tesis Membership  Universitas Indonesia Library
cover
Rieya Aprianti
"ABSTRAK
Dalam perkara perdata seringkali ada obyek sengketa yang tidak dapat dihadirkan
di muka persidangan, oleh karena itu perlu dilakukan sidang pemeriksaan
setempat (descente) oleh hakim karena jabatannya untuk mendapatkan gambaran
yang lebih jelas dan rinci mengenai obyek sengketa yang dapat dijadikan bahan
oleh hakim dalam pertimbangan saat menjatuhkan putusan. Berdasarkan latar
belakang tersebut, ada dua pokok permasalahan yang diangkat oleh penulis, yaitu
(1) bagaimana kekuatan pembuktian pemeriksaan setempat sebagai salah satu
pendukung alat bukti dalam perkara perdata; (2) Bagaimana pertimbangan hakim
dalam menilai kekuatan pembuktian pemeriksaan setempat tersebut? Adapun
metode penelitian yang digunakan oleh penulis adalah metode yuridis-normatif
yang menggunakan data sekunder atau studi kepustakaan dengan menggunakan
bahan hukum primer, sekunder, maupun tersier. Dari penelitian yang dilakukan,
hasil pemeriksaan setempat pada hakekatnya merupakan fakta persidangan yang
dapat digunakan sebagai keterangan bagi hakim. Dengan demikian, pemeriksaan
setempat memiliki kekuatan pembuktian bebas yaitu tergantung pada hakim
dalam menilai kekuatan pembuktiannya

ABSTRACT
In civil cases there is often a subject of dispute that can?t be presented in a court of
law, therefore it is necessary for a local investigation (descente) by a judge
because of his position to get a clearee picture and detail information on the
subject of dispute that can be taken into consideration by judges when verdict.
Based on this background, there are two principal issues raised by the author; (1)
How the strenght of local investigation as one of the supporting evidence in civil
procedure, (2) How does the judge considered in assessing the strenght of the
evidence the local investigation? The research methods used by the authors is a
juridical-normative method that uses secondary data or library research using
primary legal materials, secondary, and tertiary. From research conducted, the
results of the local court is essentially a fact that can be used as evidence for the
judge. Thus, the local investigation has the power that is free of evidence depends
on the judge in assessing the strength of evidence."
Universitas Indonesia, 2012
S42539
UI - Skripsi Open  Universitas Indonesia Library
cover
cover
Eva Nurhafiah Salsabilah
"Kasus fetishisme kain jarik dalam Putusan Nomor 2286/Pid.Sus/2020/PN Sby merupakan salah satu kasus yang menggemparkan publik pada tahun 2020. Dalam putusan tersebut, hakim menyatakan Terdakwa pada kasus ini telah melanggar tiga pasal, yang dua diantaranya merupakan pasal tentang perbuatan cabul. Terdakwa melakukan pencabulan dengan cara membungkus korbanya menggunakan kain jarik lalu melakukan seks oral kepada para korban nya. Di dalam hukum Islam, perbuatan yang dilakukan oleh Terdakwa ini merupakan tindak pidana asusila yang telah membahayakan orang lain. Maka dari itu, penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui lebih lanjut mengenai tinjauan hukum pidana Islam terhadap pencabulan yang dilakukan oleh pengidap fetishisme serta untuk mengetahui sanksi atau uqubah yang tepat bagi pelakunya. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yuridis-normatif dengan menggunakan metode analisis kualitatif yang didukung dengan jenis data sekunder. Kesimpulan dari hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa perbuatan cabul yang dilakukan oleh pengidap fetishisme dalam kasus ini adalah tindak pidana yang masuk dalam kategori ta’zir sehingga diancam pula dengan uqubah ta’zir. Mengenai sanksi yang tepat bagi pelakunya, maka bentuk sanksinya akan disesuaikan dengan apa yang sudah ditetapkan oleh ulil amri dan apa yang diputuskan oleh hakim ketika menjatuhkan pidananya. Untuk mencegah peristiwa ini terjadi kembali, maka perlu adanya kesadaran dari masyarakat maupun pemerintah terhadap bahaya dari gangguan preferensi seksual seperti fetishisme ini.

The case of fetishism in Verdict Number 2286/Pid.Sus/2020/PN Sby is one of the cases that shocked the public in 2020. In the verdict the judge stated that the Defendant had violated three articles, two of which were articles on sexual abuse. The Defendant committed sexual abuse by wrapping his victims using a jarik fabric and then performing oral sex on the victims. In Islamic law, the act committed by the Defendant is an immoral crime that has endangered other people. Therefore, this study aims to find out more about sexual abuse committed by people with fetishism and the right sanctions or uqubah for the perpetrators. This research is a juridical-normative research using qualitative analysis methods supported by secondary data types. The result shows that based on this case sexual abuse with fetishism in this case were criminal acts that fell into the category of ta'zir so that they were also threatened with uqubah ta'zir. Regarding the appropriate form of sanctions, it will be adjusted to what has been set by the ulil amri and what is decided by the judge when imposing the sentence. To prevent this incident from happening again, it is necessary to have awareness from the public and the government about the dangers of sexual preference disorders such as this fetishism."
Depok: Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia, 2022
S-pdf
UI - Skripsi Membership  Universitas Indonesia Library
cover
Yuana Berliyanti
"Kasus Bank Bali merupakan contoh nyata untuk melihat apakah hukum akan selalu ditaklukan oleh kekuasaan. Sejak awal terbongkarnya kasus Bank Bali terungkap fakta-fakta yang mengarah bahwa kasus Bank Bali adalah bukan masalah bisnis dan teknis perbankan semata akan tetapi sangat bernuansa politis. Terdapat indikasi dibalik Perjanjian Cessie yang tidak wajar tersebut ada unsur penyalahgunaan kekuasaan (abuse of power) untuk kepentingan orang-orang atau politik tertentu. Sekitar tahun 2003, muncul permasalahan baru yang juga mengandung ketidakwajaran didalamnya. Kejaksaan Negeri Jakarta Selatan, memerintahkan Bank Permata (bank hasil merger Bank Bali dengan dengan 4 (empat) bank lainnya) untuk segera menyerahkan uang yang ada dalam escrow account sebesar Rp. 546.466.116.369,- (lima ratus empat puluh enam milyar empat ratus enam puluh enam juta seratus enam belas ribu tiga ratus enam puluh sembilan rupiah). Alasan Kejaksaan Negeri Jakarta Selatan, eksekusi tersebut dilakukan berdasarkan diktum putusan perkara pidana dengan Terdakwa Joko S. Tjandra yang telah dinyatakan lepas dari segala tuntutan hukum (onslag van rechtverfolging). Namun, Bank Permata tidak bersedia untuk menyerahkan uang tersebut dengan alasan adanya Surat Keputusan Ketua BPPN No. 4231BPPN/1099 tertanggal 15 Oktober 1999 tentang Pembatalan Perjanjian Pengalihan (Cessie) Tagihan antara PT. Bank Bali, Tbk dengan PT. Era Giat Prima. Kemudian, pada tanggal 8 Maret 2004, Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia menjatuhkan putusan dalam perkara perdata antara PT. Era Giat Prima melawan PT. Bank Bali, Tbk dan Bank Indonesia, dimana salah satu diktum putusan tersebut berbunyi: "Menyatakan bahwa dana pada PT. Bank Bali Tbk escrow account No. 0999.045197 atas nama Bank Bali qq PT. Era Giat Prima sebesar Rp. 546.466.116.369 (lima ratus empat puluh enam milyar empat ratus enam puluh enam juta seratus enam belas ribu tiga ratus enam puluh sembilan rupiah) adalah milik PT. Bank Bali, Tbk (Penggugat dalam Rekonpensi/Tergugat I dalam Konpensi)." Jika saja peradilan di Indonesia memiliki kemampuan untuk melihat persoalan secara terintegrasi maka kasus Bank Bali yang sejak awal memiliki tingkat kompleksitas tinggi tidak akan bertambah rumit oleh karena adanya dualisme putusan hakim menyangkut kepemilikan atas uang yang ada dalam escrow account.

Bank Bali case is one of the real examples to see whether law will always be conquered by power. Since the beginning Bank Bali case was disclosed there were facts which aimed that Bank Bali case was not only business and banking technical problem but it was very political. There was an indication behind the uncommon Cessie Agreement that there was an element of abuse of power for the interest of certain people or politic. Around year 2003, a new problem existed which contained uncommon matter in it. The District Prosecutor Office of South Jakarta, ordered Bank Permata (bank as a result of the merger of Bank Bali with the other 4 banks) to give the money which was in the escrow account in the amount of Rp. 546.466.116.369, - (five hundred forty six billion four hundred sixty six million one hundred sixteen thousand and three hundred sixty nine rupiah). The reason of the District Prosecutor Office of South Jakarta was the execution was done based on the ruling of the criminal case with Joko S. Tjandra as the defendant who was declared free from all legal charges (onslag van rechtverfolging). However, Bank Permata refused to give the said money with the reason that there was a Ruling Letter from the Head of BPPN No. 423/BPPN/1099 dated 15 October 1999 concerning the Cancellation the Cessie Agreement of the Receivables between PT. Bank Bali, Tbk and PT. Era Giat Prima.Further, on 8 March 2004, The Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia declared its ruling in the civil case between PT. Era Giat Prima against PT Bank Bali, Tbk and Bank Indonesia, where one of the rulings said that: "to declare the funds in PT. Bank Bali, Tbk escrow account No. 0999.045197 in the name of Bank Bali qq PT. Era Giat Prima in the amount of Rp. 546.466.116.369,- (five hundred forty six billion four hundred sixty six million one hundred sixteen thousand and three hundred sixty nine rupiah) was owned by PT. Bank Bali,Tbk (as Plaintiff in Rekonpensi/Defendant I in Konpensi)". If only the judicature in Indonesia has the capacity to see the case wholly then the case of Bank Bali which since the beginning has the complexity will not be as complicated as there is a dualism of the judge ruling which relate to the ownership of the money in the escrow account.
"
Depok: Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia, 2007
T19903
UI - Tesis Membership  Universitas Indonesia Library
<<   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   >>