The Relevance of the Criminal Office of Fraud in a Situation of Failure to Pay Debt Agreements

Abstract

This research aims to examine and analyze the divergence of default and fraud in accounts payable agreements. In this paper, the author uses a normative juridical method with research specifications in the form of descriptive analysis. Based on the discussion, it is concluded that the differentiating parameter of default from criminal acts of fraud is in default, seen from the good faith of the parties, while the criminal act of fraud is motivated by malicious intent (mens rea) in possessing an object (goods) belonging to another person and by seeing if there is any intentional element not to fulfill its achievements. The act of pure default and the crime of fraud also have different resolutions, namely the default case is resolved through a civil lawsuit which if the lawsuit is won, the settlement is in the form of returning the rights of the plaintiff or the defendant, depending on the judge's belief. Meanwhile, the criminal act of fraud begins with a report to the competent authority (police), a prosecution is carried out by the public prosecutor, and the judge decides. The punishment is corporal punishment. As long as one of the parties fulfills the element of fraud, even though that party has made achievements during the investigation process, this does not eliminate the criminal element from his actions.