Pertimbangan Hakim terhadap Penegakan Hukum Tindak Pidana Korupsi Dana Desa

Abstract

This study aimed to analyze law enforcement efforts against criminal acts of corruption and legal considerations of judges in deciding cases related to criminal acts of corruption in village funds. This type of research was empirical research. The data source came from data obtained directly from the community or commonly referred to as primary data and other data obtained from library materials or commonly referred to as secondary data. The analysis qualitative was used for analyzing data. Law enforcement against criminal acts of corruption in village funds carried out by the prosecutor’s office was still repressive. There were no preventive actions to educate the village government about the dangers of corruption. Enforcement of village funds corruption by the High Court still very weak even though the actions taken by law enforcers were in accordance by the provisions stipulated in the Corruption Crime Law. Judges’ considerations regarded law enforcement on criminal acts of corruption in village funds consisted of juridical and non-juridical considerations.

Extraordinary Crime Corruption According to Law No. 31 of 1999

“…The crook demonstration of debasement has exceptional procedural regulations that go astray from the arrangements of procedural regulation overall. The Criminal Method Regulation applies deviations planned to accelerate techniques and acquire indictment examinations and assessments [1].…”

“…This must be implemented if the assets mentioned in the previous decision are found to contain other assets that have not been identified as the proceeds of criminal acts of corruption. Civil lawsuits in the context of confiscation of assets resulting from corruption have a specific character, namely that they can only be carried out when criminal measures are no longer possible to be used to recover state losses to the state treasury [1]. Circumstances where criminal punishment can no longer be used include, among other things, not finding sufficient evidence; death of suspect, defendant, convict; the defendant was acquitted; there are claims that there are continues of debasement that poor person been seized to the state despite the fact that the court choice has super durable legitimate power.…”

“…In upholding the law on criminal demonstrations of defilement, the Debasement Destruction Commission ought to just be given the position to do requests, examinations, and arraignments of criminal demonstrations of defilement that are thought of as exceptional and are the main establishment that is given the power to do as such, submit to a court that was shaped explicitly to look at and attempt and choosing instances of uncommon crook demonstrations of debasement. Nevertheless, the rights of suspects/defendants in the law enforcement process for criminal acts of corruption must still be respected and upheld, because this is a constitutional obligation for any law enforcement officer at all levels [1].…”

Special Connection Judicial in Corruption Cases

“…Even though a connectivity team has not been formed, if there is sufficient initial evidence by the provisions contained in the statutory regulations/the Constitutional Court decision number 21/PUUXII/ In 2014 someone could be named a suspect. In terms of pre-trial matters, it is managed in Unofficial law Number 27 of 1983 which expresses that availability cases depend on the regulations in force in each court, other debasement regulations additionally apply, for instance, Regulation Number 31 So for this situation on the off chance that there is a debasement case as planned in Article 11 of the Defilement Destruction Commission Regulation [9].…”

Criminal Actions of Corruption and Gratification in Legal Sociology

“…This must be implemented if the assets mentioned in the previous decision are found to contain other assets that have not been identified as the proceeds of criminal acts of corruption. Civil lawsuits in the context of confiscation of assets resulting from corruption have a specific character, namely that they can only be carried out when criminal measures are no longer possible to be used to recover state losses to the state treasury [4]. Circumstances where criminal punishment can no longer be used include, among other things, not finding sufficient evidence; death of suspect, defendant, convict; the defendant was acquitted; there are allegations that there are proceeds of corruption that have not been confiscated to the state even though the court decision has permanent legal force.…”