syakira mala prajasa syakira, Laely Wulandari, Lalu Saipudin

ANALISIS YURIDIS TINDAK PIDANA PENGGELEPAN DALAM JABATAN (Studi Putusan Nomor 351/Pid.b/2023/PN.Mlg)

Introduction

Analisis yuridis tindak pidana penggelepan dalam jabatan (studi putusan nomor 351/pid.b/2023/pn.mlg). Analisis yuridis tindak pidana penggelapan dalam jabatan berdasarkan studi putusan Nomor 351/Pid.B/2023/PN.Mlg. Mengungkap kekeliruan hakim dalam penerapan pasal.

Abstract

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui dan menganalisis pertimbangan hukum yang dibangun Majelis Hakim dalam menjatuhkan putusan terhadap Terdakwa yang melakukan penggelapan. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, konseptual dan kasus. Bahan hukum yang digunakan yakni primer, sekunder, dan tersier dengan studi kepustakaan. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian adanya ketidaksesuaian pertimbangan hukum dengan amar putusan. Sehingga, adanya kekeliruan oleh Majelis Hakim dalam memutus perkara Nomor 351/Pid.B/2023/PN.Mlg yang seharusnya Terdakwa sebagai notaris mengacu pada pasal 374 KUHP tentang tindak pidana penggelapan dalam jabatan bukan pasal 372 KUHP tentang tindak pidana penggelapan biasa. Sebagaimana penguasaan barang yang digelapkan terjadi dalam hubungan kerja yang berkaitan dengan jabatannya.

Review

This paper presents a focused and highly relevant legal analysis, promising a critical examination of judicial decision-making in the context of embezzlement within a professional capacity. The title clearly defines the scope, specifically anchoring the study to a particular court decision (Nomor 351/Pid.B/2023/PN.Mlg), which is commendable for its precision and practical grounding. The research methodology, characterized as normative legal research employing statute, conceptual, and case approaches, is entirely appropriate for this type of legal inquiry. The explicit aim to dissect the legal considerations adopted by the Panel of Judges is a strong foundation for a scholarly contribution to criminal law jurisprudence. The abstract effectively highlights a significant finding: a perceived inconsistency between the judges' legal reasoning and the final verdict, leading to the application of Article 372 KUHP (ordinary embezzlement) instead of the more specific and appropriate Article 374 KUHP (embezzlement in office) for a defendant acting as a notary. This core argument identifies a potential judicial error stemming from the nature of the misappropriated goods being related to the defendant's official duties. While the abstract clearly states this crucial discrepancy, a deeper elaboration on the legal ramifications or the broader implications of such an error – for instance, regarding sentencing, legal certainty, or the public perception of justice – would further strengthen its impact. Overall, this research addresses a vital area concerning the correct interpretation and application of criminal statutes by the judiciary. By critically analyzing a specific court decision, the paper offers valuable insights into the complexities of "penggelapan dalam jabatan" and its distinction from ordinary embezzlement, particularly when professional duties are involved. Such a critique contributes significantly to legal scholarship and provides practical guidance for legal practitioners, judges, and future academic endeavors. Given the clear identification of a jurisprudential issue and a well-argued alternative legal interpretation, this paper is highly suitable for publication, providing a valuable addition to discussions on criminal law application and judicial oversight.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.