<![CDATA[This study aims to analyze the judge's considerations and assess whether the sentence imposed in Decision Number 24/Pid.Sus-TPK/2023/PN Smr has reflected the purpose of sentencing, considering that the defendant was proven to have committed the crime of corruption in the form of misuse of capital participation as regulated in Article 2 paragraph (1) in conjunction with Article 18 of the Corruption Law in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph (1) point 1 of the Criminal Code, which resulted in state financial losses of Rp25,209,090,090.00, yet the defendant was only sentenced to 4 years and 6 months in prison, a fine of Rp300,000,000.00, and restitution of Rp1,160,685,293.50, all three of which were deemed too lenient and disproportionate when compared to the sentencing guidelines stipulated in Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 of 2020. The research used a doctrinal method with a statutory and case-based approach, supported by interviews with the East Kalimantan High Prosecutor's Office, the Auditor of the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency, and the Head of the Legal Sub-Division of the Financial Supervisory Agency of the East Kalimantan Provincial Representative Office. The results showed that non-legal mitigating considerations obscured the principle of proportionality. The sentences imposed did not reflect the optimal sentencing objectives of the three sentencing theories, resulting in disparities in sentencing that were deemed disproportionate to the gravity of the offense.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
