Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.444
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Indonesia Law Review (ILREV) Journal of Private and Commercial Law
Banjarani, Desia
Unknown Affiliation
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
REVERSAL BURDEN OF PROOF IN PROCESS OF PROVING MONEY LAUNDERING CASES IN INDONESIA Febriansyah, Artha; Zulfa, Eva Achjani; Yusuf, Muhammad; Banjarani, Desia
Indonesia Law Review Vol. 13, No. 1
Publisher : UI Scholars Hub

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

Abstract

The implementation of reversal burden of proof in money laundering cases still faces obstacles that cause suboptimal and ineffective in legal enforcement. It raises a debate regarding the existence of reversal burden of proof in the proving system, particularly the proof of the crime of money laundering. Based on this background, the problems in this research are related to the regulation and implementation of reversal burden of proof in the process of proving money laundering cases and the steps that can be taken in optimizing the application of reversal burden of proof in the process of proving money laundering cases. The method used in this research is normative research which is supported by empirical data. The results of the study shows that the regulation regarding the reversal burden of proof in the criminal justice system in Indonesia can be found in several Indonesian legal provisions. Regarding the implementation of the reversal burden of proof, Indonesia has several obstacles. These obstacles can be seen after researchers conducted field research on Judges and Prosecutors in Court jurisdictions who had handled money laundering cases with a nominal loss of 900 billion in Provinces that had high and medium risk of money laundering (in the vulnerable 2017 - 2019). To optimize criminal law enforcement, including the application of reversal burden of proof in the money laundering criminal justice system, it can be described based on the following variables: Legal Enforcement Knowledge Capacity; Ability to Actualize Norms; and Adequate Law Enforcement Instruments
Unlawful Acts in Determination of Joint Property and Donations Study of Decision Number 190/Pdt.G/2018/Pn.Kpg Banjarani, Desia; Muslim Nugraha; Syahri Ramadhan; Sri Handayani
Journal of Private and Commercial Law Vol. 8 No. 2 (2024): Journal of Private and Commercial Law
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Semarang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.15294/jpcl.v8i2.11893

Abstract

Analysis of Padang District Court Decision Plaintiff Name Aleta Salomi Derica Kale-Pa Number 190/Pdt.G/2018/PN.Kpg., concerning joint property grants. The legal issues raised in this analysis are: How is the analysis of the determination of joint property in Decision Number 190/Pdt.G/2018/PN.Kpg? And how can grants and control over the object of the grant be categorized as unlawful acts in Decision Number 190/Pdt.G/2018/PN.Kpg? The method used in this analysis is the IRAC Method which is a legal reasoning method with issue analysis (I), rule of law (R), argument (A), and conclusion (C). Several legal issues analyzed from the decision are to determine the object of the grant, in this case land, which is joint property, the judge's first step is to prove that the plaintiff and the landowner are husband and wife as evidenced by the Marriage Certificate. Then the next proof is related to the determination of joint property as evidenced by the land sale and purchase document. Regarding the sale and purchase process, it is also supported by the testimony of witnesses who in essence state that the witnesses know directly about the sale and purchase of the land. The grant in Decision Number 190/Pdt.G/2018/PN.Kpg has been declared as an unlawful act because the object of the grant has been proven to be joint property that was granted without the consent of the Plaintiff as the wife of the landowner. Thus, the grant is declared contrary to Article 36 paragraph 1 of Law Number 1 of 1974 concerning Marriage, Article 1666 of the Civil Code and Article 584 of the Civil Code. So based on the civil legal basis, the grant made by an unauthorized party must be declared null and void as an absolute nullity with all its legal consequences. Thus, according to the research, the decision of Decision Number 190/Pdt.G/2018/PN.Kpg is correct because the judge's considerations are in accordance with the concrete evidence as submitted by the parties.
Co-Authors Artha Febriansyah Eva Achjani Zulfa Muhammad Yusuf Muslim Nugraha Sri Handayani Syahri Ramadhan