<![CDATA[Embezzlement in office occurs when a person abuses the trust vested in them by virtue of their position. In Decision No. 947/Pid.B/2025/PN.Srg, the defendant, H. Sunohdi, S.E., was charged under Article 372 of the Criminal Code (KUHP) for acts committed while serving as Chairman of the BMT Muamaroh Cooperative, a position that granted him authority to sign customers' Time Deposit Certificates. This study examines the legal provisions governing indictments in the Indonesian criminal justice system and analyzes the consistency between the article applied in the indictment and the prevailing principles of criminal law, using a normative-empirical method combining a statutory approach, a case approach, and an empirical approach involving interviews with judges and legal practitioners. The findings show that the indictment satisfies the formal and material requirements of Article 143(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) and is therefore not legally void; however, applying Article 372 is inappropriate, since the evidence reveals a special relationship of trust (vertrouwensrelatie) arising from the defendant's official position. The author concludes that the defendant's conduct is more accurately characterized as embezzlement in office under Article 374, and the prosecutor's failure to invoke this article indicates that the indictment was not optimally formulated.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
