Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
4.987
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Lentera Hukum Spektrum Hukum Unifikasi: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum LAW REVIEW TANJUNGPURA LAW JOURNAL Widya Yuridika JURNAL HUKUM MEDIA BHAKTI PengabdianMu: Jurnal Ilmiah Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat Jurnal Yudisial Jurnal Penelitian Hukum - Fakultas Hukum Universitas Gadjah Mada Transparansi Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Administrasi Pena Justisia: Media Komunikasi dan Kajian Hukum Majalah Ilmiah Warta Dharmawangsa SABDAMAS Abdimasku : Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat Jurnal Esensi Hukum Tadulako Master Law Journal Aktual Justice Collegium Studiosum Journal Jurnal Lemhannas RI Transnational Business Law Journal Prosiding Seminar Hukum Aktual Fakultas Hukum Universitas Islam Indonesia Lex Prospicit Jurnal KIK-AK
P. Karo, Rizky Pratama
Universitas Pelita Harapan
Religion Agriculture, Biological Sciences & Forestry Arts Humanities Biochemistry, Genetics & Molecular Biology Computer Science & IT Decision Sciences, Operations Research & Management Economics, Econometrics & Finance Education Environmental Science Health Professions Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Library & Information Science Physics Public Health Social Sciences Other

Published : 43 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 43 Documents
Search

 1   2   3   4   5 
PIDANA UANG PENGGANTI TERHADAP KORPORASI DALAM TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI Karo Karo, Rizky P. P.
Jurnal Yudisial Vol. 13 No. 2 (2020): VINCULUM JURIS
Publisher : Komisi Yudisial RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29123/jy.v13i2.366

Abstract

ABSTRAKPutusan Nomor 94/Pid.Sus/TPK/2017/PN.JKT.PST yang telah dikuatkan dengan Putusan Nomor 3/Pid.Sus-TPK/2018/PT.DKI adalah putusan yang pertama kali diberikan kepada korporasi yang terbukti melakukan tindak pidana korupsi di Indonesia. Hakim menjatuhkan putusan pidana tambahan uang pengganti. Rumusan masalah artikel ini adalah bagaimana ratio-legis hakim dalam menjatuhkan pidana tambahan berupa pembayaran uang pengganti terhadap korporasi dalam perkara a quo? Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian normatif. Pendekatan penelitian yang digunakan adalah pendekatan kasus dan pendekatan perundang-undangan. Hasil penelitian yang didapatkan adalah bahwa penafsiran hakim dalam memberikan pidana tambahan berupa uang pengganti kepada PT DGI/PT NKE hanya berorientasi pada pengembalian kerugian keuangan negara yang telah dibuktikan atas laporan audit Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan. Putusan ini juga menunjukkan adanya terobosan hukum karena hakim telah berhasil menggali hubungan hukum antara terdakwa dengan tindakannya yang memanfaatkan PT DGI/PT NKE untuk memperkaya diri sendiri secara melawan hukum. Maksud pidana tambahan ini adalah untuk mengembalikan kerugian keuangan negara yang seharusnya tidak terjadi, jika PT DGI/PT NKE tidak mencari keuntungan pribadi secara melawan hukum. Kata kunci: korporasi; pidana tambahan; uang pengganti. ABSTRACTDecision Number 94/Pid.Sus/TPK/2017/PN.JKT.PST which has been strengthened by Decision Number 3/Pid.Sus-TPK/2018/PT.DKI is the rst decision given to a corporation proven to have committed an act corruption in Indonesia. The judge gave a criminal verdict on additional replacement money. The formulation of the problem in this article is what is the ratio-legis of judges in imposing additional sanction in the form of compensation payments to corporations in a quo case? This research uses normative research methods. The research approach used is a case approach and a statutory approach. The results obtained are that the judge’s interpretation of giving additional penalties in the form of replacement money to PT DGI/PT NKE is only oriented towards recovering state nancial losses that have been proven on the audit report of the Supreme Audit Agency. This decision shows that there is a legal breakthrough because the judge has succeeded in exploring the legal relationship between the defendant and his actions of using PT DGI/PT NKE to enrich himself illegally. The purpose of this additional crime is to recover state nancial losses that should not have occurred if PT DGI/PT NKE did not seek personal gain against the law. Keywords: corporation; additional criminal; compensation money.  
INTERPRETASI HAKIM DAN RASA KEADILAN MASYARAKAT Karo Karo, Rizky
Jurnal Yudisial Vol. 16 No. 3 (2023): DISPARITAS PUTUSAN
Publisher : Komisi Yudisial RI

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.29123/jy.v16i3.652

Abstract

Majelis hakim pemeriksa perkara FS di tingkat kasasi Mahkamah Agung telah menjatuhkan putusan pemidanaan yang berbeda dengan putusan FS di pengadilan negeri dan di pengadilan tinggi. Vonis hakim pada Putusan Nomor 813 K/Pid/2023 (putusan kasasi FS) memperbaiki Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi  DKI Jakarta menjadi menjatuhkan pidana kepada terdakwa FS tersebut dengan pidana penjara seumur hidup. Putusan kasasi FS menimbulkan pro dan kontra di masyarakat. Putusan kasasi FS dianggap mencederai rasa keadilan masyarakat. Rumusan masalah dalam analisis ini adalah bagaimana hubungan antara interpretasi dan independensi hakim dengan pemenuhan rasa keadilan masyarakat dalam putusan kasasi FS. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian normatif. Hasil penelitian menjabarkan bahwa putusan kasasi FS merupakan putusan yang wajib dihormati oleh pelbagai pihak, baik FS, keluarga FS, keluarga korban, dan masyarakat. Majelis hakim tingkat kasasi melakukan interpretasi hukum sistematis dan futuristik dalam memberikan vonis karena salah satu pertimbangannya ialah dengan mendasari Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2023 tentang Kitab Undang Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP). Interpretasi ini juga merupakan kewenangan hakim Mahkamah Agung untuk hanya memeriksa judex juris. Mahkamah Agung tidak memeriksa fakta dan bukti perkara melainkan memberikan interpretasi dan konstruksi hukum terhadap fakta yang telah diperiksa oleh judex facti baik di pengeadilan negeri dan pengadilan tinggi.
The Ideal Punishment for Corporations that False the Brand of the Theory of Dignified Justice Karo Karo, Rizky; Pasaribu, Debora; Sinaga, Irene Puteri A.S; Pawe, Arnoldus
Pena Justisia: Media Komunikasi dan Kajian Hukum Vol. 22 No. 2 (2023): Pena Justisia
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Pekalongan

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31941/pj.v22i2.3346

Abstract

The corporation is an organized collection of persons and/or wealth, whether it is a legal entity or non-legal entity [Article 1 point 1 of Supreme Court Regulation No. 13 of 2016). Corporations are established to seek profit / profit unlawfully. Marks are one of the intellectual property rights protected by Law No. 20 of 2016 concerning Marks and Geographical Indications (Law 20/2016). Trademark rights holders are protected by Law 20/2016 from counterfeiting acts. This paper will discuss penalties both regulated in Law 20/2016 or will be regulated in Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code [KUHP (Law 1/2023)] concerning corporate punishment. The formulation of the problem raised is how is the ideal punishment for corporations that falsify the perspective brand of dignified justice theory? The research method used is the normative juridical method. The author uses secondary data in the form of primary legal material, secondary legal material, and tertiary. And the author uses qualitative analysis to come up with a conclusion. The result of the study, namely the theory of dignified justice, is a theory initiated by Teguh Prasetyo, Professor of the Faculty of Law, Universitas Pelita Harapan, this theory is based on Pancasila and aims to humanize humans (nge wong ke wong-in Javanese). The Criminal Code (Law 1/2023) provides guidance on the requirements for corporations that can be criminally liable. Based on the Criminal Code (Law 1/2023), the criminal for corporations is the main crime in the form of fines, and additional crimes. Meanwhile, based on Law 20/2016, imprisonment and/or fines may be  imposed, for example: sentenced to a maximum of 5 (five) years imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of  Rp2,000,000,000.00 (two billion rupiah). The ideal crime & in accordance with the theory of dignified justice for the corporation is the criminal fine, and destruction of goods from the counterfeited brand, as well as the revocation of licenses.
Co-Authors A.A. Ketut Agung Cahyawan W Abednego Ozora Abraham Ethan Albar, Rafsi Azzam Hibatullah Amanda Fitri Yana Anastasia Pritahayu Ratih Daniyati Arnoldus Pawe Arnoldus Pawe Arnoldus Pawe Asri Winnie Irawati Sularto Bernice Bernice Brandon Hartanto Christine Susanti Debora Pasaribu Debora Pasaribu Debora Pasaribu Debora Pasaribu, Debora Dian Laksmi Dewi, Cokorde Istri Dian Parluhutan Dwi Putra Nugraha Dwi Putra Nugraha Erwin Firmansyah Erwin Firmansyah Faisal Alif Bima Saputra Giovani, Ryan Graceyana Jennifer Graceyana Jennifer Hosiana Daniel Adrian Gultom Indah Sriulina br. Ginting Indah Sriulina br. Ginting Irene Puteri A. S. Sinaga Irene Puteri A.S Sinaga Irene Putri A. S. Sinaga Jeremiah Maximillian Laza Kumagap, Elsa Finelia Laurenzia Luna M. Naufal Shidqi Dhiyaulhaq Morita Christallago Naufan Mufti Sudarmono Nindyatami, Pawestri Pawe, Arnoldus Pricilia, Vena Reinaldy Reisia Palmina Brahmana Renee Lim Respati, Yossi Niken Ridawati br. Tarigan Samuel Kaban Solavide Sebastian, Agnes Serlly Waileruny Setiadinata, Natasha Shafira Marsa Sharon Rheinata Sinaga, Irene Puteri A.S Sri Purnama Stefana, Violent Ester Steven Steven Sugianto, Joanne Natasha Sukardi, Ellora Sundah, Pierre Mauritz Surya Lung Teguh Prasetyo Vanesia Ciayadi Kwang Velliana Tanaya Vincensia Esti Purnama Sari Vitto Andhika Putra Willy Wendy Fernando Yoshin Nainggolan Zahra