PIDANA PEMBAYARAN UANG PENGGANTI BERDASARKAN UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 3 TAHUN 1971

• Main Author: SRI SUMARWANI, -
• Format: Theses and Dissertations NonPeerReviewed
• Language: English
• Published: 1998
• Subjects: K5015.4-5350 Criminal law
• Online Access: https://repository.unair.ac.id/134129/1/14.%20Pidana%20Pembayaran%20Uang%20Pengganti%20SUDAH.pdf; https://repository.unair.ac.id/134129/; http://www.lib.unair.ac.id
• Institution: Universitas Airlangga

Since the effectiveness of Law No. 3 of 1971 on "The Eradication of Corrupt Practices" there have been quite a number of cases tried and decided. The cases are criminal acts which elements as laid down in article 1 paragraphs 1 a, b, c, d, and e, and paragraph 2 of the Law are met. This implies that only those who commit criminal acts that meet elements as stipulated in those provisions may be sentenced to imprisonment, fine, and imposed with additional punishments by confiscation of certain properties and payment of restitution money. The imposition of restitution money would be calculated considering the difference between the confiscated properties and the amount of money the state has lost because of the corruption. It should be noted, however, that the amount of restitution money imposed as an additional penalty is not as much as what the state has lost. Instead, it can only be imposed to the extent of the value of properties acquired from corruption. In considering punishment in corruption cases, judges should take care that the sentence pronounced should consider all sanctions, which are imprisonment, fine, additional punishment by confiscation of certain properties and payment of restitution money. Having taken all sanctions into consideration, they should come to a judgment of how much money should fairly be imposed as restitution money, to the person who have been convicted. Payment of restitution money as provided in Law No. 3 of 1971 is of additional punishment, which cannot be imposed separatedly from the main punishment. It is -designated as a juridical remedy to compensate state's financial loss. This research has found that the amount of restitution money paid by the offender is much lesser than what the state has lost. Several factors are responsible for it, a. o. it is difficult to trace properties acquired from corruption funds since the offenders are very clever in preventing the properties from being discovered. In addition, there is no provision which regulates in case of failure made by the offender to pay the restitution money. This means that there is no legal basis to compel the offender to comply with the court"s order. Consequently, payment of restitution money as an additional punishment designated by the lawmaker to compensate state"s financial loss is of little avail.