Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
ABSTRAK
Skripsi ini membahas tentang konsep perdagangan pengaruh yang ketentuannya terdapat dalam Pasal 18 United Nation Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC). Meskipun Indonesia telah meratifikasi UNCAC, namun hingga saat ini, Indonesia belum membuat suatu pemidanaan terhadap para pelaku perdagangan pengaruh. Hal ini menimbulkan masalah karena kerap kali ditemukan kasus perdagangan pengaruh dalam pemeriksaan perkara korupsi di Pengadilan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Salah satu kasusnya ialah kasus suap kuota sapi impor atas nama terdakwa Luthfi Hassan Ishaaq. Penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian normatif yaitu penelitian yang dilakukan terhadap peraturan perundang-undangan dan kepustakaan hukum serta doktrin yang berkaitan dengan konsep trading in influence. Skripsi ini juga membandingkan ketentuan mengenai trading in influence di beberapa negara, baik dengan sistem hukum civil law maupun common law. Hasil penelitian menyimpulkan bahwa pengaturan mengenai perdagangan pengaruh di berbagai negara, baik yang mengatur ataupun tidak mengatur, masih memiliki beberapa masalah. Pada kasus Luthfi terdapat konsep perdagangan pengaruh yang seharusnya tidak dapat dipidana berdasarkan ketentuan delik suap.

---

ABSTRACT
This thesis discusses the concept of trading in influence that contained in Article 18 United Nation Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC). Although Indonesia ratified the convention, but Indonesia still not criminalize trading in influence yet. It caused a major problem because the act of trading in influence cases identified so often in the case of corruption in the corruption court. One of its cases is beef import quota bribe case by the defendant Luthfi Hassan Ishaaq. The research uses normative research method that is a study of legislation and legal literature and doctrine relating to the concept of trading in influence. This thesis also compared the provisions on trading in influence in some countries, both civil law and common law system. The study concluded that the provisions of trading in influence in some countries, whether regulate or not, have several problems. In Luthfi?s case, there is a concept of trading in influence which should not be punished based on bribery provision.

Abstrak :
ABSTRACT
This article will give some rational and reasonable reasons to answer a question on why it is not necessary to attribute a criminal liability upon a political party, considering the meaningless amount of fine as the main punishment that can be imposed to a corporation which convicted of a crime (corruption). This analysis will be based on economic analysis of law and this article will give some relevant equations and precise calculations to support its stance. However, it doesn't mean that the authors disagree with punishing a political party whose member has committed a corruption. Instead, an insignificant amount of punishment that the anti-corruption law currently regulates and a large sum of money/ assets that a political party may have, are the main factors that cause inefficient enforcement. Therefore, increasing the amount of punishment in the anti-corruption law is the only solution to create a deterrence effect for a corporation, to deter and disincentivise a corporation that wants to commit a corruption.