The Formulation Policy on Corporate Criminal Liability System For The 1950 - 2017 Period and Its Harmonization in The Renewal of National Criminal Law

Abstract

The Criminal Code (KUHP) which currently applies does not recognize corporations as the subject of criminal acts. Therefore, the formulation/legislation policy concerning corporate criminal liability system in Indonesia is only regulated in various specific criminal laws (lex specialis). This research discusses the formulation/legislation policy regarding the corporate criminal liability system in 124 special criminal legislations outside the Criminal Code (KUHP) from 1950-2017. This research used a normative juridical research method as well as interpretation method with a policy-oriented approach. Types and sources of data used were secondary data in the form of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The collected data were then analyzed based on qualitative analysis method. The results of the research showed that the corporate criminal liability system in legal politics in Indonesia (especially in the formulation/legislation policy) still experiences disorientation and disharmonious. Besides, the national law development should follow every development and/or change of society that is developing in the direction of modernization and globalization and should be able to accommodate all society�s needs in various fields. This legal development should be continuously carried out (as a dynamic and an endless process) by "improving (making things better)" and "changing the law to be better and modern".Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP) yang saat ini berlaku tidak mengakui korporasi sebagai subjek tindak pidana.Oleh karenanya, kebijakan formulasi/legislasi mengenai sistem pertanggungjawaban pidana korporasi di Indonesia hanya diatur dalam berbagai peraturan perundang-undangan pidana yang bersifat khusus (lex specialis). Penelitian ini akan membahas mengenai kebijakan formulasi/legislasi mengenai sistem pertanggungjawaban pidana korporasi dalam 124 (seratus dua puluh empat) peraturan perundang-undangan pidana khusus di luar Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP) dari tahun 1950-2017. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dan metode interpretasi dengan pendekatan yang berorientasi pada kebijakan (policy oriented approach). Jenis dan sumber data yang dipergunakan adalah data sekunder yang berupa bahan hukum primer, bahan hukum sekunder dan bahan hukum tertier. Data yang telah terkumpul akan dianalisis berdasarkan metode analisis secara kualitatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa sistem pertanggungjawaban pidana korporasi dalam politik hukum di Indonesia (khususnya pada kebijakan formulasi/legislasi) masih mengalami disorientasi dan disharmoni. Selain itu, pembangunan hukum nasional harus mengikuti setiap perkembangan dan/atau perubahan masyarakat yang sedang berkembang ke arah modernisasi dan globalisasi serta mampu menampung semua kebutuhan masyarakat di berbagai bidang. Pembangunan hukum seperti ini harus terus-menerus dilakukan (sebagai proses yang dinamis dan proses yang tidak pernah berakhir) dengan cara �menyempurnakan (membuat sesuatu yang lebih baik)� dan �mengubah agar hukum menjadi lebih baik dan modern�.

Examination of Judge's Decision Number 732/Pid.Sus/2017/PN Jkt.Utr: A Case Study of Immigration Crimes Committed by Corporation based on Article 118 juncto Article 136 paragraph (1) of the Indonesian Immigration Law

“…This action will give rise to a very compact and solid crime organization (Sjahdeini, 2017). This is usually based on interests and also ethnic and tribal ties or family ties, and in a corporate crime (Priyatno, 2017). In this action, there may be the involvement of law enforcement, professional groups, and the community who are the beneficiaries of the proceeds of crime (Prasetyo, et al, 2017).…”

Legal Liability of Illegal Online Loans in the Perspective of Criminal Law

“…The management of the corporation as the maker and manager is responsible; b. The corporation as maker and manager is responsible; and c. Corporations as makers and also as responsible (Priyatno, 2017).…”