Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 12 Documents
Search

ANALYSIS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR THE CRIMINAL ACT OF EMBEZZLEMENT IN THE WORK ENVIRONMENT Eti Kusharyanti; FX Suyud Margono; Sendi Sanjaya; Appe Hutauruk
JILPR Journal Indonesia Law and Policy Review Vol. 7 No. 1 (2026): Journal Indonesia Law and Policy Review (JILPR), October 2026
Publisher : International Peneliti Ekonomi, Sosial dan Teknologi

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

This embezzlement in the work environment is one form of crime against property that occurs due to the abuse of trust within the employment relationship between an employee and a company. This act not only causes material losses to the company, but also damages the trust that serves as the foundation of employment relations. This research aims to examine the judges’ legal considerations in imposing criminal sanctions on perpetrators of embezzlement in the work environment in Decision Number 493/Pid.B/2024/PN Jkt.Pst, and to analyze whether the decision of the panel of judges has fulfilled the sense of justice for the company as the victim of the criminal act of embezzlement. The research method used in this thesis is normative legal research, namely research that examines law as a norm by using primary legal materials, secondary legal materials, and tertiary legal materials. This research is descriptive in nature, with data collection techniques carried out through library research. The data obtained were then analyzed qualitatively, logically, systematically, and normatively juridically by connecting the applicable legal provisions with the legal facts contained in the court decision. The results of the research show that embezzlement in the work environment occurred because the defendant obtained control over money not through a criminal act, but through an employment relationship as a collector whose duty was to receive installment payments from debtors. However, the money that should have been deposited to the company was instead used for personal purposes without the permission and knowledge of the company. In this case, the Public Prosecutor charged the defendant with alternative indictments, namely Article 374 of the Indonesian Criminal Code concerning embezzlement in office or Article 372 of the Indonesian Criminal Code concerning ordinary embezzlement. The panel of judges then considered Article 374 of the Indonesian Criminal Code because its elements were deemed to be in accordance with the facts revealed during the trial.
ANALYSIS OF TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT DUE TO WORKER NEGLIGENCE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS ON WORKER RIGHTS Alponsus Simbolon; FX Suyud Margono; Sendi Sanjaya; Appe Hutauruk
JILPR Journal Indonesia Law and Policy Review Vol. 7 No. 1 (2026): Journal Indonesia Law and Policy Review (JILPR), October 2026
Publisher : International Peneliti Ekonomi, Sosial dan Teknologi

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Termination of employment due to employee negligence constitutes a significant issue in labor law and may give rise to industrial disputes because of differing interpretations regarding the threshold of negligence that may justify termination and its implications for employees’ legal rights. This study aims to analyze the legal framework governing termination of employment on the grounds of employee negligence under Indonesian legislation and to examine the judicial considerations and their implications for employees’ rights in Decision No. 140/Pdt-Sus.PHI/2024/PN Jkt.Pst. This study employs a normative legal research method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The primary legal materials comprise Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower, Law No. 6 of 2023 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation as Law, Law No. 2 of 2004 on the Settlement of Industrial Relations Disputes, and Decision No. 140/Pdt-Sus.PHI/2024/PN Jkt.Pst, supported by secondary legal materials, including books, scholarly journals, and legal doctrines. The materials were analyzed qualitatively using a descriptive-analytical method. The findings demonstrate that termination of employment on the grounds of employee negligence may only be justified where it is based on applicable legislation, an employment agreement, company regulations, or a collective labor agreement, and is supported by sufficient evidence establishing the employee’s violation or negligence. In Decision No. 140/Pdt-Sus.PHI/2024/PN Jkt.Pst, the court’s legal reasoning primarily focused on the evidentiary assessment of the facts, the application of labor law, and the balancing of justice, legal certainty, and utility in resolving the industrial relations dispute. The decision further demonstrates that termination on the grounds of negligence does not automatically extinguish an employee’s statutory entitlements, unless there is a specific legal basis that provides otherwise. Accordingly, reliance on employee negligence as grounds for termination must be exercised proportionately, objectively, and on the basis of adequate evidence and due legal process, thereby ensuring both the protection of employees’ rights and legal certainty for employers.