Tinjauan Yuridis Terhadap Tindak Pidana Penadahan Dalam Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Pekanbaru Nomor 140/PID.B/2018/PT.PBR

Insani, Diana (2021) Tinjauan Yuridis Terhadap Tindak Pidana Penadahan Dalam Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Pekanbaru Nomor 140/PID.B/2018/PT.PBR. Other thesis, Universitas Islam Riau.

Preview

Text 151010435.pdf Download (952kB) | Preview

Abstract

The crime of detention as regulated in Article 480 of the Criminal Code, in this case with the intention of gaining profit, is an element of all detention. Case Decision Number: 140/PID.B/2018/PT.PBR is a case of adjudication of Article 480 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 82 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in that decision, the Pekanbaru High Court Judge has stated that the actions of the defendant Khairul Munziri, have fulfill the formulation of a crime in Article 480 of the Criminal Code, the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for 2 (two) years and 6 (six) months. The main problems in this research are first, how is the proof of the criminal act of violating Article 480 of the Criminal Code in the case of detention in the Pekanbaru High Court decision number 140/Pid.B/2018/PT.PBR and the Legal Considerations of the Panel of Judges in Deciding Case Number 140/Pid.B /2018/PT. PBR. This writing, when viewed from the type of research, is classified as normative legal research, namely research to examine and explore and find answers about what should be from each problem studied based on secondary data consisting of 3 (three) primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials. Meanwhile, if viewed from its nature, this research is descriptive, namely research that explains in the form of clear and detailed sentences about the juridical review of the criminal act of detention in the decision of the Pekanbaru High Court Number 140/Pid.B/2018/PT.PBR. Proof of Criminal Acts of Violation of Article 480 of the Criminal Code in the Case of Suspension of the Pekanbaru High Court Decision Number 140/Pid.B/2018/PT.PBR was carried out by the Public Prosecutor by presenting 4 (four) witnesses. The evidence provided by the Prosecutor was refuted by 2 evidences of expert testimony and the Defendant's statement which stated that the defendant did not know anything about the money transferred by the criminal named Nopriyon, and the Expert also added that the Defendant did not enjoy the proceeds of the crime at all. . Legal Considerations of the Panel of Judges Decided on Case Number 140/Pid.B/2018/PT.PBR which stated that the Defendant knew that the money transferred was proceeds of crime, because when a person makes a transfer, it will be asked by the person receiving the transfer, and on this matter The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for 2 (one) years and 6 (six) months, having previously received a prison sentence of 1 (one) year from the Pekanbaru District Court. The judge's judgment was wrong, because the defendant did not enjoy the proceeds of the crime at all, and in a separate file, Nopriyon said that the defendant did not know anything and did not receive a share when the money was transferred by Nopriyon to his account.

Actions (login required)

View Item