OPTIMALISASI PENEGAKAN HUKUM OLEH HAKIM TERHADAP TINDAK PIDANA PENIPUAN
Abstract
This study aims to examine the judge’s considerations in deciding a case involving criminal fraud and the sentencing of the perpetrator of the fraudulent act. The research employs a normative legal research method, utilizing statutory, conceptual, and case approaches to obtain a comprehensive understanding. The findings indicate that the application of criminal law to the fraud offense in Case Decision Number: 148/Pid.B/2022/PN.Pya shows that the defendant was charged under Law Number 1 of 1946 concerning the Criminal Code (KUHP), Article 378 in conjunction with Article 55 of the KUHP. The indictment prepared by the public prosecutor fulfilled both the formal and material requirements of an indictment as regulated under Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), particularly Articles 183–189 of the KUHAP. In the indictment, the public prosecutor demanded that the defendant be found guilty of committing a criminal act of fraud. Based on legal facts, including witness testimonies and the defendant's own statements, the application of criminal law in this case—namely Article 378 in conjunction with Article 55 of the Criminal Code—was deemed accurate and appropriate. The judge’s legal considerations in applying the relevant criminal provisions in Decision Number: 148/Pid.B/2022/PN.Pya concluded that the defendant was proven guilty of committing the crime of fraud under Article 378 in conjunction with Article 55 of the Criminal Code, and therefore sentenced to 1 (one) year and 10 (ten) months of imprisonment. The judge’s assessment was considered appropriate, taking into account legal arguments, trial facts, witness testimonies, available evidence, judicial conviction, and supporting circumstances. However, the criminal sanction imposed was deemed suboptimal or lenient and insufficient to generate a deterrent effect both specifically for the convict and generally for the public—as should be the function of criminal punishment.
Keywords: Law Enforcement, Judge, Fraud Crime
