<![CDATA[This study examines two primary research questions: first, how corruption offenses are regulated under applicable laws in relation to the case of PT Petogras Persada, a Regional Government-Owned Enterprise (BUMD) in Karawang Regency; and second, how judges deliberated in sentencing at both the first-instance and appellate levels. This research employs a normative legal method with statute and case approaches. The findings reveal that the first-instance judicial panel applied Article 3 of the Anti-Corruption Law regarding abuse of authority under the subsidiary indictment. At this level, the defendant was sentenced to 2 years of imprisonment and required to pay substitute compensation amounting to IDR 5,145,224,363. Subsequently, the Bandung High Court increased the sentence to 4 years of imprisonment, which ultimately attained final and binding legal force (inkracht). The divergence in judicial deliberations between the two levels of adjudication reflects the dynamic application of sentencing theories, balancing individual considerations for the defendant against general preventive objectives in enforcing anti-corruption laws within regional state-owned enterprises. This study offers deep insights into the dynamics of judicial discretion and underscores the necessity of consistent legal reasoning to ensure justice and legal certainty in handling corruption cases involving segregated regional state assets.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
