The Authority of the Public Prosecutor in Confiscating Evidence of Corruption at the Prosecution Stage
Abstract
This study aims to determine and analyze the legality of the confiscation of evidence of corruption by the Public Prosecutor at the Prosecution stage and to determine and analyze the authority of the Public Prosecutor in confiscating evidence of corruption at the Prosecution Stage. The research method used is a normative legal research approach, namely an approach carried out by examining the approach of theories, concepts, reviewing laws and regulations related to the implementation of the Public Prosecutor's authority in confiscating evidence of corruption at the Prosecution Stage. Based on the research that the legal process of confiscation of evidence of corruption by the Public Prosecutor at the Prosecution Stage, if during the trial legal facts are found related to the defendant's property that has not been confiscated at the investigation level, then the Public Prosecutor can submit a request for a confiscation permit to the Panel of Judges then after it is granted the Panel of Judges issues a Determination of the Confiscation Permit from the Panel of Judges, Furthermore, the Public Prosecutor in following up on the determination makes a Minutes of the Implementation of the Judge's Determination and Minutes of the Implementation of the Confiscation which are then attached to the case file and stated in the indictment related to evidence. In practice, confiscation by the Public Prosecutor at trial has been carried out in handling the cases of convicted Corruption in the name of Defendant Honggo Wendratno (in absentia) and the Crime of Money Laundering of Jiwasraya Insurance in the name of Defendant Heru Hidayat and Defendant Benny Tjokrosaputro.
Keywords
References
Abdul Aziz Dahlan, 1996, Esinklopedi Hukum Islam, Jakarta: Ichtiar Baru Van Hoeve.
Achmad Ali, 2009, Menguak Teori Hukum Legal Theory dan Teori Peradilan Judicialprudence Termasuk Interpretasi Undang-Undang legisprudence, Kencana Prenada Media Group, Jakarta.
Aḥmad Fathi Bahasyi, 1984, Teori Pembuktian Menurut Fiqih Jinyah Islam, Terj. Usman Hasyim & Ibnu Rachman, Andi Offset, Yogyakarta.
Andi Hamzah, 1996, Hukum Acara Pidana Indonesia, Sapta Artha Jaya, Jakarta.
Achmad Budi, 2018, Implementasi Sistem Peradilan Pidana dalam Perspektif Integrasi, Jurnal Daulat Hukum UNISSULA Semarang, Vol. 1 No.1, 1 Maret 2018.
Aridona Bustari, 2020, Kepastian Hukum Koordinasi Fungsionalantara Penyidik Kepolisian Dan Jaksa Penuntut Umum Dalam Prapenuntutan (Kajian Terhadap Pasal 138 Ayat (2) Undang-Undang Republik Indonesianomor 8 Tahun 1981 Tentang Hukum Acara Pidana).
Bagir Manan, Wewenang Provinsi Kebupaten, dan Kota dalam Rangka Otonomi Daerah, Makalah pada Seminar Nasional, Fakultas Hukum Unpad, 13 Mei 2000, Bandung.
Cekli Setya. 2013. Kegagalan Mewujudkan Keadilan Prosedural dan Substansial dalam Putusan Hakim Tinggi Perkara Tindak Pidana Psikotropika Nomor: 25/PID/B/2010/PT SBY. Fakultas Hukum Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang.
Eddy Mulyadi Soepardi, 2010, Peran BPKP Dalam Penanganan Kasus Berindikasi Korupsi Pengadaan Barang Dan Jasa Konsultasi Instansi Pemerintah, Seminar Nasional Permasalahan Hukum Pada Pelaksanaan Kontrak Jasa Konsultansi dan Pencegahan Korupsi Di Lingkungan Instansi Pemerintah, Jakarta: Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia dengan INKINDO.
Philipus M. Hadjon, 1998, “Tentang Wewenang”, Makalah Pada Penataan Hukum Administrasi, Surabaya: Fakultas Hukum Universitas Airlangga.
Sudikno Mertokusumo, 2010, Mengenal Hukum, Universitas Atmajaya Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta.
Sumaidi, Kajian Terhadap Penyitaan Sebagai Pemaksaan Yang Dihalalkan Oleh Hukum. Legalitas, Jurnal Hukum.
Yadi, et al, 2024, Kewenangan Penuntut Umum dalam Penyitaan Hasil Tindak Pidana Korupsi dalam Perspektif Peraturan Perundang-Undangan, Jurnal Fakultas Hukum Universitas Malikussaleh, Vol 12 No 1, 1 April 2024.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30659/rlj.3.4.%25p
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Ratio Legis Journal has been indexed in:
