TINJAUAN YURIDIS PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PIDANA TURUT SERTA PENGGELAPAN LEGAL COUNSEL DALAM TINDAK PIDANA KORPORASI (STUDI PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG NOMOR 1370 K/PID/2025)

Syahdiar Rohman Hamid, NIM.: 22103040159 (2026) TINJAUAN YURIDIS PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PIDANA TURUT SERTA PENGGELAPAN LEGAL COUNSEL DALAM TINDAK PIDANA KORPORASI (STUDI PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG NOMOR 1370 K/PID/2025). Skripsi thesis, UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA.

Preview	Text (TINJAUAN YURIDIS PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PIDANA TURUT SERTA PENGGELAPAN LEGAL COUNSEL DALAM TINDAK PIDANA KORPORASI (STUDI PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG NOMOR 1370 K/PID/2025)) 22103040159_BAB-I_IV-atau-V_DAFTAR-PUSTAKA.pdf - Published Version Download (10MB) | Preview
	Text (TINJAUAN YURIDIS PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PIDANA TURUT SERTA PENGGELAPAN LEGAL COUNSEL DALAM TINDAK PIDANA KORPORASI (STUDI PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH AGUNG NOMOR 1370 K/PID/2025)) 22103040159_BAB-II_sampai_SEBELUM-BAB-TERAKHIR.pdf - Published Version Restricted to Registered users only Download (16MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

The case of KWS in Supreme Court Decision Number 1370 K/Pid/2025 raises an issue concerning the limits of criminal liability of a Legal Counsel in performing professional functions. KWS was charged with the crime of embezzlement committed jointly pursuant to Article 372 in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph (1) point 1 of the Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP). This research aims to analyze the ratio decidendi of the Panel of Judges in imposing criminal liability on a Legal Counsel and to examine such criminal liability based on the theory of criminal responsibility. This research constitutes normative legal research using a statutory approach (statute approach) and a case approach (case approach). Legal materials were obtained through library research involving legislation, court decisions, books, and journals, and were subsequently analyzed using descriptive-qualitative analysis. The results of the research indicate that first, the ratio decidendi of the Panel of Judges in finding KWS guilty of embezzlement committed jointly was based on the finding that there was conscious cooperation and joint execution between KWS and the EEES management in a series of acts that resulted in PT EMA's income remaining under the control of EEES. Second, based on the theory of criminal responsibility, KWS's criminal liability was established on the fulfillment of the elements of the criminal offense and the existence of fault in the form of intent. However, in his dissenting opinion, Supreme Court Justice Sigid Triyono was of the view that KWS's actions constituted the performance of his professional duties as a Legal Counsel and did not fulfill the elements of joint participation in embezzlement.

Share this knowledge with your friends :

Actions (login required)

View Item