Analisis Yuridis Terhadap Sistem Pembuktian Tindak Pidana Pencucian Uang yang Predicate Crime Tidak Diketahui Oleh Komisi Pemberantasn Korupsi (Studi Kasus: Perkara No. 537/K/PIDSUS/2014)

Waruwu, Eka Putra Kristian (2020) Analisis Yuridis Terhadap Sistem Pembuktian Tindak Pidana Pencucian Uang yang Predicate Crime Tidak Diketahui Oleh Komisi Pemberantasn Korupsi (Studi Kasus: Perkara No. 537/K/PIDSUS/2014). Other thesis, Universitas Islam Riau.

Preview

Text 141020025.pdf - Submitted Version Download (969kB) | Preview

Abstract

The crime of money laundering does not stand alone because of property placed, transferred or transferred by means of the integration obtained of a criminal offense, meaning that a criminal act has occurred first predicate it (predicate crime). But in the case of Proof of acts money laundering does not have to be proven before a crime provenance (predicate crime). This confirms that the crime of laundering money certainly has predicate crime. The main problem in this study is how the system Proof of a crime of money laundering that predicate crime is not known? The author analyzes using the Criminal Procedure Code as general guidelines for procedural law, TPPU Law as Special arrangements outside Criminal Procedure Code and supported by legal doctrines and court decisions. That the second is what constitutes a juridical obstacle for the Corruption Eradication Commission in its verification money laundering predicate crime is unknown. The type of research used in answering this thesis problem is a normative legal research Normative juridical research method is used because this research was conducted through a study of documents by researching library materials in the form of legal norms, basic methods, judges' decisions, and laws and regulations relating to existing research. The withdrawal of conclusions is carried out in an inductive or deductive manner accordingly the real condition of the research object desired by the researcher. Based on the author's analysis of the crime of money laundering predicate crime is unknown, that is, first, when the investigation of the TPPU case An. Inspector General Djoko Susilo, investigators can develop it in other TPPU cases which occur outside the proceeds of criminal acts of origin corruption which is being handled, even in other TPPU cases that occurred before the enactment of Law No. 8 of 2010.With sufficiently "known" or "reasonably suspected" is the result of a criminal offense origin (predicate crime). "Known" or "suspect" is an alternative, just choose one of them, namely: "known" or "suspect". Selection "Known" is applied when the predicate crime (predicate crime) is known has happened and is proven according to law. While the choice "should be suspected" applied if the original crime (predicate crime) is not or has not been able proven.The second is, that by not proving a crime the origin or predicate crime in the TPPU case in the third indictment, become a juridical obstacle for the KPK to prove it predicate crime if it turns out the court's decision is not proven.

Actions (login required)

View Item