APPLICATION OF THE LAW OF PARDON IN CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT FOR THE CRIMINAL ACTS OF EMBEZZLEMENT: ANALYSIS OF DECISION NUMBER 236/PID.B/2026/PN PTK

Hilda Lestari (Universitas Sembilanbelas November Kolaka, Kolaka)
Yahyanto (Universitas Sembilanbelas November Kolaka, Kolaka)
Hasdin Yadin (Universitas Sembilanbelas November Kolaka, Kolaka)

Multidiciplinary Output Research for Actual and International Issue (Morfai Journal)
Vol. 6 No. 6 (2026): Multidiciplinary Output Research For Actual and International Issue

This study aims to analyze the application of rechterlijk pardon in the sentencing of embezzlement cases based on Decision Number 236/Pid.B/2026/PN Ptk. The analysis focuses on the assessment of evidence, the legal basis for granting judicial pardon under Supreme Court Regulation Number 3 of 2026 concerning Judicial Pardon Decisions, the form of the judgment, and the considerations underlying the judge's decision to grant a pardon. This study employs a normative legal research method using statutory, case, and conceptual approaches. The legal materials are analyzed using qualitative and prescriptive methods by examining Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the Criminal Code, Supreme Court Regulation Number 3 of 2026, and Decision Number 236/Pid.B/2026/PN Ptk. The findings indicate that the defendant was legally and convincingly found guilty of participating in embezzlement; however, the Panel of Judges granted rechterlijk pardon without imposing a criminal penalty or measure. The granting of judicial pardon was based on objective and individual-relational considerations, including the seriousness of the offense and the potential criminal penalty, the defendant's role as a participant in the offense (medepleger), the defendant's personal circumstances, and the compensation for the victim's losses and reconciliation with the victim. This application demonstrates that judicial pardon distinguishes between establishing guilt and determining whether a criminal penalty is necessary. It also reflects the relevance of restorative justice while maintaining the distinction between judicial pardon and restorative justice mechanisms.