Perbedaan Pembuktian Unsur Turut Serta Manager Operasional Perusahaan pada Tindak Pidana Pemalsuan Surat (Analisis Putusan Nomor 99/Pid.B/2020/PN MDL dan Putusan Nomor 1578/Pid.B/2020/PT MDN)

Abstract

The importance of letters in society, it does not rule out the possibility of actions by irresponsible individuals to gain benefits, one of which is by committing forgery of letters (valschheid in geschriften). In practice, forgery of documents can be carried out by an individual and, in certain cases, can also be done by several people together (participation). With the involvement of multiple perpetrators in a crime, there arises a difference in the penalties imposed on each of the offenders. This thesis contains several problem formulations as follows: 1) How is the regulation of the crime of forgery of documents according to Indonesian criminal law? 2) How the prove the element of participation and its relation to criminal liability? 3) How is the proof of the element of participation of the company's operational manager in the crime of forgery of documents in decision number 99/Pid.B/2020/PN Mdl and decision number 1578/Pid.B/2020/PT Mdn? The research method used in the writing of this thesis is the normative juridical research method, which utilizes secondary data obtained from primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The data analysis used in this research is qualitative analysis. At the end of this research, it can be concluded that there are differences in the judges' considerations in decision number 99/Pid.B/2020/PN Mdl and decision number 1578/Pid.B/2020/PT Mdn regarding the proof of the element of participation in forgery of documents. The difference is evident in the verdicts delivered by the panel of judges. In the district court's ruling, a 3 (three) year prison sentence was imposed on the Defendant, whereas the high court's ruling acquitted the Defendant. The difference in the verdicts was based on the differing considerations of the judges in proving the elements/requirements of complicity that must be fulfilled by the defendant. Thus, the High Court judges disagreed with the PN's decision and believed that the PN Judge had erred in applying the proof of the element of complicity in the forgery of the letter.