Pemenuhan Unsur Kerugian Keuangan Negara Sebagai Dasar Pembuktian pada Proses Penetapan Tersangka dalam Perkara Tindak Pidana Korupsi (Studi Putusan Praperadilan Nomor 113/Pid.Pra/2024/Jkt.Sel)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47134/lawstudies.v2i4.4288Keywords:
Fulfillment of Elements, State Financial Losses, Determination of Suspects, Criminal Acts of CorruptionAbstract
The enforcement of criminal law on corruption in Indonesia faces a complex dilemma between efforts to eradicate corruption and the protection of human rights, particularly in the process of determining suspects in cases involving financial losses to the state. Constitutional Court Decision No. 25/PUU-XIV/2016 has clarified that financial loss to the state under Articles 2 and 3 of the Corruption Criminal Law must be actual loss, not potential loss. This study analyzes the fulfillment of the criminal elements of Articles 2 and 3 of Law No. 31 of 1999 as a requirement for suspect designation and evaluates its application in Pre-Trial Ruling No. 113/PID.PRA/2024/JKT.SEL. Using a normative legal research method with a legislative and case-based approach, the study analyzes relevant regulations, court decisions, and legal doctrines. The results of the study indicate that the element of financial loss to the state is an absolute requirement in the designation of corruption suspects through the application of the relevance theory. Investigators must have evidence from an investigative audit by the State Audit Agency (BPK/BPKP) showing actual loss before designating a suspect. The study concludes that the designation of a corruption suspect must be supported by measurable evidence of state financial loss from the competent authority. The preliminary hearing decision was legally flawed because it did not apply the evidentiary standards in accordance with criminal procedural law and the material elements of the corruption offense.
References
Ali, M., & Yuherawan, B. S. D. (2020). Delik-Delik Korupsi. Sinar Grafika.
Arief Irsan M. (2022). Pertanggungjawaban Atas Kerugian Keuangan Negara Dalam Perspektif Hukum Administrasi, Perdata/Bisnis dan Pidana/Korupsi. Mekar Cipta Lestari.
Benuf, K., Mahmudah, S., & Priyono, E. A. (2019). Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Keamanan Data Konsumen Financial Technology Di Indonesia. Refleksi Hukum: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 3(2), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.24246/jrh.2019.v3.i2.p145-160
Dinata, A. W. (2021). Sengkarut Limitasi Hak Atas Informasi Hasil Investigasi Kecelakaan Pesawat.
Dinda, C. P., & Iman Munandar, T. (2020). Praperadilan Terhadap Penetapan Status Tersangka Tindak Pidana Korupsi oleh Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi. PAMPAS: Journal Of Criminal, 1, 82–103. https://www.google.co.id/amp/s/www.voaindonesia.com/amp/3692750.html,
Fatkhurohman, & Kurniawan, N. (2017). The Shifting of The Corruption Offense on Constitutional Court Decision Number 25/PUU-XIV/2016.
Islamy Pahlevy Billy. (2020, August). Kelemahan Normatif Pengaturan Tindak Pidana Dalam Pasal 2 Dan Pasal 3 Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 Tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi Dan Perubahannya Serta Upaya Penyempurnaannya Dalam Rangka Pemenuhan Kewenangan Direksi Bumd Yang Berbentuk Persero. Https://Core.Ac.Uk/Outputs/327690607/?Utm_source=pdf&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=pdf-Decoration-V1.
Janis, N., Pondaag, A. H., & Koesoemo, A. T. (2023). Novella Jannis- Latar Belakang. Jurnal Fakultas Hukum Universitas Sam Ratulangi Lex Privatum, Vol 12/No 04.
Muhaimin. (2020). Metode Penelitian Hukum. Mataram University Press.
Nugroho, H. S. (2020). Kewenangan Lembaga Pengadilan Dalam Menetapkan Sah Atau Tidaknya Status Tersangka Kasus Korupsi Di Sidang Praperadilan (Vol. 8, Issue 1).
O.S. Hiariej, E. (2012). Teori dan Hukum Pembuktian (Y. Sri Hayati, Ed.). PENERBIT ERLANGGA.
Perubahan Hukum. (2025). Alasan Pengacara Tom Lembong Gigih Minta Jaksa Berikan Hasil Audit BPKP. TikTok.Com. https://vt.tiktok.com/ZShwSeDwf/
Pratama, F., Saputra, I., Firmansyah, A., & Marwan, T. (2024). Sistem Pembuktian dalam Hukum Pidana Indonesia dan Tantangan dalam Proses Peradilan. JIMMI: Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa Multidisiplin, 1, 279–292. https://jurnal.fanshurinstitute.org/index.php/jimmi|279
Pratiwi, W., Olyvia, J., Efritadewi, A., & Widiyani, H. (2024). Problematika Pengaturan Hukum Tindak Pidana Korupsi: Pasal 2 dan 3 UU RI Nomor 31 Tahun 1999. Jurnal Ilmiah Wahana Pendidikan, 10(13), 776–786. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12820171
Priskila Ginting, Y., Faruq Ikbar, A., Efla Putri, D., Rihhadatul Aisy, G., & Pua Dawe, R. (2023). Perbandingan Penegakan Hukum Mengenai Tindak Pidana Korupsi di Negara Indonesia dan Negara Malaysia Berdasarkan Sistem Hukumnya. In Jurnal Pengabdian West Science (Vol. 02, Issue 06).
Rahman, W. (2019). Wewenang Praperadilan: Memeriksa Dan Memutus Penetapan Status Tersangka.
Safitri, K., & Ramadhan Ardito. (2024, November). Kasus Tom Lembong, Kejagung: Status Tersangka Korupsi Tak Harus Terima Uang. Kompas.Com. https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2024/11/01/06183061/kasus-tom-lembong-kejagung-status-tersangka-korupsi-tak-harus-terima-uang
Sheren Monintja, E. (2020). Ester Sheren Monintja. Lex Crimen, Vol. IX/No. 2(Tinjauan Yuridis Pasal 2 Dan 3 Undangundang Tindak Pidana Korupsi Sebagai Delik Materil Menurut Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 25/PUUXIV/2016), 97–105.
Wisnubroto Al., & Widiaratna G. (2021). Menuju Hukum Acara Pidana Baru. PT. Citra Aditya Bakti.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Dina Tri Kuswandari , Nanda Sahputra Umara
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
