The Element of Deliberate Action in a Series of Actions on PRONA Program's Corruption Crime

Q2 Social Sciences Law Environment and Development Journal Pub Date : 2021-03-07 DOI:10.30659/ldj.3.1.44-51
Anton Ariyanto, I. Maerani
{"title":"The Element of Deliberate Action in a Series of Actions on PRONA Program's Corruption Crime","authors":"Anton Ariyanto, I. Maerani","doi":"10.30659/ldj.3.1.44-51","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this research is to analyze construction law panel of judges in deciding cases of corruption, qualifying extortion in the PRONA program. The research approach method used is a qualitative normative juridical approach. The legal construction built by the Panel of Judges in criminal cases of extortion qualification of corruption fulfills the provisions in Criminal Law, namely the Principles of Legality and culpability. The defendant was proven to have violated the law in the provisions charged by the public prosecutor, namely Act No. 31 of 1999 Jo Act No. 20 of 2001 and Article 55 paragraph (1) to 1 of the Criminal Code. The conclusion of this research is that the defendant was proven intentionally, at least knowing it as an intentional element, designing the Prona committee, determining Prona's fees, and issuing a “threat” letter to the applicant which should be free (with certain conditions). According to the Panel of Judges, such legal facts are sufficient to prove that the defendant was deliberately involved in the criminal act of corruption. It is recommended that in dealing with corruption cases with the same motive, in the future, the public prosecutor is more courageous in giving a single indictment. So that from the start, I was sure of the charges given, especially from the collection of materials and information through a catch operation.","PeriodicalId":55646,"journal":{"name":"Law Environment and Development Journal","volume":"04 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law Environment and Development Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30659/ldj.3.1.44-51","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to analyze construction law panel of judges in deciding cases of corruption, qualifying extortion in the PRONA program. The research approach method used is a qualitative normative juridical approach. The legal construction built by the Panel of Judges in criminal cases of extortion qualification of corruption fulfills the provisions in Criminal Law, namely the Principles of Legality and culpability. The defendant was proven to have violated the law in the provisions charged by the public prosecutor, namely Act No. 31 of 1999 Jo Act No. 20 of 2001 and Article 55 paragraph (1) to 1 of the Criminal Code. The conclusion of this research is that the defendant was proven intentionally, at least knowing it as an intentional element, designing the Prona committee, determining Prona's fees, and issuing a “threat” letter to the applicant which should be free (with certain conditions). According to the Panel of Judges, such legal facts are sufficient to prove that the defendant was deliberately involved in the criminal act of corruption. It is recommended that in dealing with corruption cases with the same motive, in the future, the public prosecutor is more courageous in giving a single indictment. So that from the start, I was sure of the charges given, especially from the collection of materials and information through a catch operation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
论proa项目腐败犯罪系列诉讼中的故意行为要件
本研究的目的是分析建筑法法官小组在判决腐败案件时,符合PRONA计划的敲诈勒索。所采用的研究方法是一种定性的规范性法律方法。法官合议庭在敲诈勒索刑事案件中构建的腐败资格的法律结构符合刑法的规定,即罪责原则。检察官指控的条款,即1999年第31号法、2001年第20号法和《刑法》第55条第1款至第1款,证明被告违反了法律。本研究的结论是,被告被证明是故意的,至少知道它是一个故意的因素,设计proona委员会,确定proona的费用,并向申请人发出“威胁”信,该信应该是免费的(有一定条件)。法官小组认为,这些法律事实足以证明被告是蓄意参与贪污犯罪行为。建议今后在处理相同动机的腐败案件时,检察机关应更勇敢地提出单一起诉。所以从一开始,我就确定了指控,特别是通过抓捕行动收集材料和信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Juridical Analysis in Viewing the Position of Reported Revocation of Complaints A General Criminal One Party by the Reporter in Investigation Process The Criminological Ideas in the Criminal Enforcement of Illegal Logging The Criminal Policy in Efforts to Overcome Crimes Perpetrated by the Indonesian National Army An Investigator's Discretion in State Assets Confiscation Criminal Action Case of Corruption The Legal Protection for Children as Criminal Actors
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1