Garuda - Garba Rujukan Digital

Meretas Konsep Baru Pidana Denda Terhadap Tindak Pidana Korupsi: Analisis Komparatif dengan Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Amerika Serikat, Bribery Act Inggris, dan Wetboek van Strafrecht Belanda Valerian, Dion
Integritas : Jurnal Antikorupsi Vol. 5 No. 2 (2019): INTEGRITAS Volume 05 Nomor 2 Tahun 2019
Publisher : Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi

Indonesian Anti-Corruption Act stipulates its criminal fines provision by determining a fixed amount of fines in its criminal offences formulation. This article analyses and compares the concept of criminal fines in the Indonesian Anti-Corruption Act, the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, United Kingdom Bribery Act, and the Dutch Criminal Code. The study found that each of the aforementioned US, UK, and Dutch anti-bribery laws have its distinctive concept to overcome the problem of criminal fines provisionÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s astringency that could be used in the Indonesian Anti-Corruption Act reform.

EFEKTIVITAS PELAKSANAAN HAK WARGA BINAAN PEREMPUAN DALAM MEWUJUDKAN TUJUAN PEMASYARAKATAN: STUDI KASUS RUMAH TAHANAN KLAS II A JAKARTA TIMUR Arviani, Cassandra Nadia; Fatony, Achmad; Aditantyo, Antonius; Valerian, Dion; Widigda, Dhurandhara Try; Paladina, Kezia Minar
Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan Vol. 45, No. 3
Publisher : UI Scholars Hub

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

The writer(s) of this article try to explain the rights of protection for the people in detention center. Many legal rules made by the state. But practicaly, the authorities in the detention center focused on the liability and responsibility of the prisoners rather then considered about their rights. So, this research group found some findings in their research site at the detention center, about the unfair treatment, discrimination, rights violation, and other mistreatment.

KRITERIA KRIMINALISASI: ANALISIS PEMIKIRAN MOELJATNO, SUDARTO, THEO DE ROOS, DAN IRIS HAENEN Valerian, Dion
Veritas et Justitia Vol. 8 No. 2 (2022): Veritas et Justitia
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Parahyangan Catholic University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25123/vej.v8i2.4923

In criminal law, “criminalization” is defined as a process of determining certain conduct as a criminal offense through legislation. This doctrinal legal research article describes and analyzes the criteria for criminalization as promulgated by Moeljatno, Sudarto, Theo de Roos, and Iris Haenen. Moeljatno’s criteria are: 1) the conduct is harmful to the public, 2) criminalization is the primary means to deter the harmful conduct, and 3) the government’s ability to effectively enforce the criminal provision. Sudarto promulgates three criteria: 1) harmfulness of the conduct, 2) cost and benefit analysis, and 3) law enforcement burden. Furthermore, Theo de Roos’ six criteria are: 1) feasibility and motivation of harm, 2) tolerance, 3) subsidiarity, 4) proportionality, 5) legality, and 6) practical applicability and effectiveness. Lastly, based on de Roos’ typology Iris Haenen formulates three criteria: 1) primary criteria, which contains “threshold principles”: the conduct must be a) harmful and b) wrongful, 2) secondary criteria, which contains “moderating principles”: proportionality, subsidiarity, and effectiveness, and 3) legality criterion (lex certa). The criteria for criminalization can be employed by the legislators and general public in scrutinizing the feasibility of criminalization of a conduct, to ensure that only the conducts which meet all the criteria that can be criminalized. Only by doing so will the practice of criminalization adhere to the ultimum remedium principle and deter unnecessary criminalization and overcriminalization.

Enforcing transnational non-conviction-based confiscation orders: comparing the United Nations, European Union, Australian, and Indonesian legal frameworks Valerian, Dion
Integritas: Jurnal Antikorupsi Vol. 11 No. 1 (2025): INTEGRITAS: Jurnal Antikorupsi
Publisher : Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.32697/integritas.v11i1.1520

The present article compares and critically examines the enforcement of transnational non-conviction-based confiscation (NCBC) orders in the United Nations (UN), European Union (EU), Australian, and Indonesian legal frameworks utilising comparative legal and document analyses. The results serve as a reference for regulating a fair and effective framework for transnational NCBC enforcement in Indonesian law. This research compares the nature of NCBC, adaptive response conceptualisation, mechanisms facilitating transnational NCBC enforcement, and procedural safeguards in the transnational enforcement stage. It concludes that the relevant UN, EU, and Australian legal frameworks can serve as benchmarks for transnational NCBC enforcement in Indonesia, specifically regarding norm formulation of NCBC, international cooperation for effecting transnational NCBC orders, and the corresponding procedural safeguards to ensure fairness. However, the research findings indicate that practices of transnational NCBC enforcement in these jurisdictions have yet to generate significant references for empirical effectiveness benchmarking. Furthermore, this article discovers crucial implications for the criminological theory of adaptive response. Lastly, reconceptualisation of the Indonesian NCBC regime and proposals for reforming the Criminal Assets Confiscation Bill and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act are recommended.

KRITERIA KRIMINALISASI: ANALISIS PEMIKIRAN MOELJATNO, SUDARTO, THEO DE ROOS, DAN IRIS HAENEN Valerian, Dion
Veritas et Justitia Vol. 8 No. 2 (2022): Veritas et Justitia
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Parahyangan Catholic University

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25123/vej.v8i2.4923

In criminal law, “criminalization” is defined as a process of determining certain conduct as a criminal offense through legislation. This doctrinal legal research article describes and analyzes the criteria for criminalization as promulgated by Moeljatno, Sudarto, Theo de Roos, and Iris Haenen. Moeljatno’s criteria are: 1) the conduct is harmful to the public, 2) criminalization is the primary means to deter the harmful conduct, and 3) the government’s ability to effectively enforce the criminal provision. Sudarto promulgates three criteria: 1) harmfulness of the conduct, 2) cost and benefit analysis, and 3) law enforcement burden. Furthermore, Theo de Roos’ six criteria are: 1) feasibility and motivation of harm, 2) tolerance, 3) subsidiarity, 4) proportionality, 5) legality, and 6) practical applicability and effectiveness. Lastly, based on de Roos’ typology Iris Haenen formulates three criteria: 1) primary criteria, which contains “threshold principles”: the conduct must be a) harmful and b) wrongful, 2) secondary criteria, which contains “moderating principles”: proportionality, subsidiarity, and effectiveness, and 3) legality criterion (lex certa). The criteria for criminalization can be employed by the legislators and general public in scrutinizing the feasibility of criminalization of a conduct, to ensure that only the conducts which meet all the criteria that can be criminalized. Only by doing so will the practice of criminalization adhere to the ultimum remedium principle and deter unnecessary criminalization and overcriminalization.

Title

Found 5 Documents
Search

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Title Search

Found 5 Documents Search

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Title

Found 5 Documents
Search