•  
  •  
 

Authors

Hariman Satria

Abstract

PT Agro Indomas as a corporation was convicted of having committed a criminal act of running a business without an environmental permit, explicitly in Decision Number 77/Pid.Sus/2018/PN Tgt. This study method uses normative legal research, through a case approach and a conceptual approach. There are several findings in this study, namely: the expressive verbis a quo decision has met the formal and material requirements of the indictment. If seen from the prosecution letter, the a quo decision has a weakness, namely that there are no additional criminal charges in the form of corrections due to criminal acts. In the ratio decidendi, the panel of judges equates corporate fault and corporate culture theory, even though they are different. In the verdict, the panel of judges did not include provisions regarding substitute imprisonment as an anticipation if the fine was not paid by the defendant. The panel of judges should have added a clause in the form of confiscation of assets of the management if fines are not paid by the corporation. In the end, the a quo decision can serve as jurisprudence in criminalizing corporations in Indonesia.

Bahasa Abstract

PT Agro Indomas selaku korporasi dipidana karena telah melakukan tindak pidana menjalankan usaha tanpa izin lingkungan, eksplisit dalam Putusan Nomor 77/Pid.Sus/2018/PN Tgt. Metode kajian ini, menggunakan penelitian hukum normatif, melalui pendekatan kasus dan pendekatan konseptual. Terdapat beberapa temuan dalam kajian ini, yakni: putusan a quo secara expressis verbis telah memenuhi syarat formil dan materil surat dakwaan. Jika dilihat dari surat tuntutan, putusan a quo memiliki kelemahan yakni tidak ada tuntutan pidana tambahan berupa perbaikan akibat tindak pidana. Dalam ratio decidendi, majelis hakim menyamakan antara corporate fault dan corporate culture theory, padahal keduanya berbeda. Pada amar putusan, majelis hakim tidak memasukan klausul mengenai pidana kurungan pengganti sebagai antisipasi jika pidana denda tidak dibayar oleh terdakwa. Majelis hakim seharusnya, menambahkan klausul berupa perampasan aset pengurus jika denda tidak dibayar oleh korporasi. Pada akhirnya, putusan a quo dapat dijadikan sebagai yurisprudensi dalam pemidanaan korporasi di Indonesia.

References

BUKU

Braithwaite, J., (1994). Corporate Crime in The Pharmaceutical Industry. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Box, S., (2003). Power, Crime and Mystification. Taylor Francis Group.

Clarkson, Keating dan Cunningham. (2007). Criminal Law: Text and Material. Thomson Sweet & Maxwell.

Cremona, M., (1989), Criminal Law, Macmillan Education Ltd.

Fisse, B. dan Braithwaite, J., (1993). Corporations, Crime and Accountability. Cambridge University

Press. Friedman, W., (1953). Legal Theory. Stevens and Sons Limited.

Garner, B. A., (2009). Black’s Law Dictionary. Thomson Reuters Business. Hadjon, P.M dan

Djamiati, T.S., (2009). Argumentasi hukum. Gadjah Mada University Press.

Harahap, M. Y., (2009). Pembahasan Permasalahan dan Penerapan KUHAP: Penyidikan dan Penuntutan, Sinar Grafika.

Jonkers, J.E., (1987). Buku Pedoman Hukum Pidana Hindia Belanda. PT Bina Aksara.

Marzuki, P. M., (2014). Penelitian Hukum. Kencana Prenada Media. Mcleod, T.I., 1999, Legal Theory, Macmillan.

Paine, B.K,. (2017). White Collar Crime: The Essentials. Sage Publication.

Pinto, A & Evans, M., (2003). Corporate Criminal Liability. Sweet and Maxwell.

Pollock, J.M., (2015). Criminal Law. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Clinard, M. B., dan Quinney, R., (1973). Criminal Behavior System: A Typology. Holt Rinehart and Winston.

Remmelink, J., (2003), Hukum Pidana: Komentar atas Pasal-Pasal Terpenting Dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana Belanda dan Padanannya Dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana Indonesia. Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

Reksodiputro, M., (2020). Sistem Peradilan Pidana. PT RajaGrafindo Persada.

Santoso, T., (2020). Hukum Pidana: Suatu Pengantar. PT RajaGrafindo Persada.

Satria, H., (2020). Hukum Pidana Korporasi: Doktrin, Norma dan Praksis. Kencana Prenada Media Group

. Schaffmeister, D., Keijzer, N., dan Sutorius, E.P.H., (1995). Hukum Pidana. Liberty.

Shofie, Y., (2011). Tanggungjawab Pidana Korporasi Dalam Hukum Perlindungan Konsumen Di Indonesia, PT Citra Aditya Bakti.

Simpson, S. S., (2005). Corporate Crime, Law, and Social Control. Cambridge University Press.

Soekanto, S., (1986). Pengantar Penelitian Hukum. UI Press.

JURNAL

Satria, H., (2018). Environmental Pollution: Assessing The Criminal Liability of Corporations, Hasanuddin Law Review, 4(2), 194-203.

Irvine, C., (2020). Why do lay people know about justice? An empirical enquiry. International Journal of Law in Context, 16(2), 146-164. PUTUSAN PENGADILAN

PUTUSAN PENGADILAN

Negeri. Putusan Nomor No. 77/Pid.Sus/2018/PN. Tgt, Putusan PN Tanah Grogot, PT Agro Indomas

Download

Included in

Criminal Law Commons

COinS