Analisis Ratio Decidendi Hakim dalam Kasus Tindak Pidana Penggelapan dalam Jabatan di Pengadilan Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55606/jurrish.v4i4.6346Keywords:
Crime, Embezzlement, Ratio Decidendi, Criminal Responsibility, Criminal LawAbstract
One form of crime that is highly relevant in the context of today's society is the crime of embezzlement in office. This embezzlement can be defined as a dishonest act committed by one or more individuals by hiding goods or property belonging to another person without the owner's knowledge. This action aims to transfer ownership of the goods, which can be categorized as theft, taking possession of goods, or using the goods for unauthorized personal gain. In many cases, embezzlement in office often involves individuals who have access or authority over company assets, making it easier for them to commit misuse. This study applies a normative juridical research method to analyze existing problems in the context of criminal law. This method allows researchers to explore and understand applicable legal norms and how they are applied in real cases. The results of the study show that the Judge's Ratio Decidendi in imposing sanctions on cases of embezzlement in office, as stated in Decision Number 542/Pid.B/2023/PN Cbi and Decision Number 355/Pid.B/2024/PN Cbi, is based on a number of in-depth legal considerations. In this case, the judge first explained the elements contained in Article 374 of the Criminal Code (KUHP) charged by the public prosecutor. The defendant was found guilty of committing embezzlement in office by embezzling company funds for personal gain. Therefore, the defendant was sentenced commensurate with his actions, which violated Article 374 of the Criminal Code. Criminal liability for the perpetrator of the crime of embezzlement in office has been legally and convincingly proven, with all elements of the charge having been fulfilled. This indicates that the perpetrator can be subject to sanctions in accordance with applicable legal provisions, thus providing a deterrent effect and upholding justice in the criminal law system. This research is expected to contribute to the development of understanding regarding embezzlement in office and its legal implications in Indonesia, as well as encourage more effective law enforcement in handling similar cases in the future.
Downloads
References
Achmad Ali. (2002). Menguak tabir hukum (Edisi kedua). PT Toko Gunung Agung Tbk.
Adami Chazawi. (2008). Stelsel pidana, tindak pidana, teori-teori pemidanaan & batas berlakunya hukum pidana. PT Raja Grafindo Persada.
Adami Chazawi. (2014). Pelajaran hukum pidana Bagian 1. PT RajaGrafindo Persada.
Ali, Z. (2009). Metode penelitian hukum. Sinar Grafika.
Andi Hamzah. (2008). Asas-asas hukum pidana. PT Rineka Cipta.
Andi Sofyan, & Nur Azisa. (2016). Hukum pidana. Pustaka Pena Press.
Andrisman, T. (2009). Asas-asas dan dasar aturan umum hukum pidana Indonesia. Universitas Lampung.
Arief, B. N. (1994). Pembaharuan hukum pidana dan masalah kebijakan delik aduan. Masalah-Masalah Hukum, Fakultas Hukum UNDIP, No. 4.
Arief, B. N. (2005). Pembaharuan hukum pidana dalam perspektif kajian perbandingan. Citra Aditya Bakti.
Arief, B. N. (2008). Bunga rampai kebijakan hukum pidana: Perkembangan konsep KUHP baru (Cet. ke-1). Kencana Prenadamedia Group.
Arto, M. (2004). Praktik perkara perdata pada pengadilan agama (Cet. V). Pustaka Pelajar.
Chaerudin, S., Dinar, S. A., & Fadillah, S. (2008). Strategi pencegahan dan penegakan hukum tindak pidana korupsi. Refika Aditama.
Diellyana, S. (1998). Konsep penegakan hukum. Liberty.
Ediwarman. (2016). Monograf metode penelitian hukum (Panduan penulisan skripsi, tesis, dan disertasi). Genta Publishing.
Goldstein, J. (1975). Police discretion not to invoke the criminal process: Low-visibility decision in the administration of justice. Dalam G. F. Cole (Ed.), Criminal justice: Law and politics (2nd ed.).
Gunadi, I., & Efendi, J. (2014). Cepat dan mudah memahami hukum pidana. Kencana.
Hartanto. (2019). Hukum tindak pidana khusus. CV Budi Utomo.
Haryanto, I. (1999). Kejahatan negara: Telaah tentang penerapan delik keamanan negara. Lembaga Studi dan Advokasi Masyarakat.
Lamintang, P. A. F. (2001). Dasar-dasar hukum pidana Indonesia. Citra Aditya Bakti.
Loho, A. C. A. (2019). Alasan pemberat dan peringanan pidana terhadap delik penggelapan dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana. Jurnal Fakultas Hukum Universitas Sam Ratulangi Manado, 8(12).
Mahmud, P. (2011). Penelitian hukum. Prenada Media.
Marpaung, L. (2012). Asas, teori, praktik hukum pidana. Sinar Grafika.
Moeljatno. (2002). Asas-asas hukum pidana. Rineka Cipta.
Muhammad, R. (2007). Hukum acara pidana kontemporer. Citra Aditya Bakti.
Prasetyo, T. (2013). Hukum pidana. PT RajaGrafindo Persada.
Prasetyo, T. (n.d.). Kriminalisasi dan dekriminalisasi (Cet. I). Pustaka Pelajar.
Prodjodikoro, W. (2005). Tindak-tindak pidana tertentu di Indonesia. Rafika Aditama.
Prodjodikoro, W. (2011). Asas-asas hukum pidana di Indonesia. Refika Aditama.
Rahardjo, S. (2006). Ilmu hukum. Citra Aditya Bakti.
Rahardjo, S. (2008). Bunga rampai permasalahan dalam sistem peradilan pidana. Pusat Pelayanan Keadilan dan Pengabdian Hukum.
Rahardjo, S. (2010). Masalah penegakan hukum (suatu tinjauan sosiologis). Sinar Baru.
Sedarwiyanti, & Hidayat, S. (2011). Metodologi penelitian. Mandar Maju.
Sibuea, H. P. (2010). Asas negara hukum, peraturan kebijakan, asas-asas umum pemerintahan yang baik. Erlangga.
Soerjono Soekanto, & Mamudji, S. (2015). Penelitian hukum normatif: Suatu tinjauan singkat. Rajawali Pers.
Soesilo, R. (1994). Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP) serta komentar-komentarnya lengkap pasal demi pasal. Politeia.
Sudarto. (1983). Hukum pidana dan perkembangan masyarakat. Sinar Baru.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Jurnal Riset Rumpun Ilmu Sosial, Politik dan Humaniora
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
