ABSTRAKDi Indonesia, tindak pidana perbankan diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 10 Tahun 1998 tentang Perubahan Atas Undang-Undang Nomor 7 Tahun 1992 tentang Perbankan. Di dalam undang-undang tersebut diatur secara tegas mengenai ancaman sanksi berupa pidana bagi pelanggarnya. Pasal 49 ayat (2) huruf b Undang-Undang Nomor 10 Tahun 1998 telah mengatur ancaman pidana untuk tindak pidana perbankan dengan sistem minimum khusus, yaitu paling singkat tiga tahun penjara dan denda paling sedikit Rp.5.000.000.000,- (lima miliar rupiah). Majelis hakim dalam Putusan Nomor 1554 K/Pid.Sus/2014 menjatuhkan pidana penjara bersyarat. Putusan tersebut membatalkan putusan Pengadilan Negeri Tanjung Karang (judex facti) Nomor 437/Pid.Sus/2013 yang menjatuhkan putusan bebas (vrijspraak). Majelis hakim dalam Putusan Nomor 1554 K/Pid.Sus/2014 telah menjatuhkan pidana penjara di bawah ancaman minimum, yaitu selama enam bulan penjara dengan sistem bersyarat. Menurut Pasal 14 ayat (1) KUHP, pidana bersyarat hanya dapat dilakukan apabila majelis hakim menjatuhkan pidana penjara paling lama satu tahun. Analisis putusan ini berfokus pada pokok pertimbangan majelis hakim dalam Putusan Nomor 1554 K/Pid.Sus/2014 terkait penjatuhan pidana penjara bersyarat, dilihat dari ketentuan lamanya ancaman pidana. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif dan berkesimpulan bahwa penjatuhan pidana penjara bersyarat dalam kasus tersebut dapat dibenarkan dengan alasan demi keadilan serta fakta keseimbangan antara tingkat kesalahan pelaku dan keadaan yang melingkupinya.Kata kunci: penjatuhan pidana, pidana penjara bersyarat, tindak pidana perbankan.ABSTRACTBanking Crime in Indonesia is regulated in Law Number 10 of 1998 on the amendment to Law Number 7 of 1992 on Banking. The law expressly set the criminal sanctions for any violation. Article 49 paragraph (2) point b of Law Number 10 of 1998, has been stipulated criminal sanctions for banking crime at a special minimum system, which is imprisonment a minimum for three years and fine for at least five billion rupiahs. In Decision Number 1554 K/Pid.Sus/2014 concerning banking crime, the panel of judges imposes unconditional imprisonment. Judex facti of the District Court of Tanjung Karang in the decision has overturned the Decision Number 437/Pid.Sus/2013 which is a judgment of acquittal (vrijspraak). The panel of judges in Decision Number 1554 K/Pid.Sus/2014 has dropped the sentence to six-month in prison term, which is placed under the minimum penalty of acriminal sentence. According to Article 14 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code, conditional sentencing can only be compelling if a panel of judges dropped a maximum imprisonment of one year. The analysis focuses on the consideration of the panel of judges in making the Decision Number 1554 K/Pid.Sus/2014 and sentencing conditional imprisonment in accordance to the criminal sanction and sentencing provisions. This analysis employs normative legal research methods and resolves that sentencing conditional imprisonment in this case is allowed for the sake of justice, as well as the facts, the balance between error level of the accused and the circumstances surrounding.Keywords: sentencing, conditional imprisonment sentence, banking crime.
Copyrights © 2016