Keabsahan Pemindahtanganan Aset Bumn Berupa Hak Atas Tanah Dalam Penjatuhan Pidana Pembayaran Uang Pengganti Berdasarkan Putusan Pengadilan Tindak Pidana Korupsi (Studi Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor: 435 PK/PID.SUS/2020)

Abstract

THE VALIDITY OF THE TRANSFER OF STATE-OWNED ENTERPRISE ASSETS IN THE FORM OF LAND RIGHTS IN THE IMPOSING OF CRIMINAL PAYMENT OF REPLACEMENT MONEY BASED ON COURT DECISIONS CRIMINAL ACT OF CORRUPTION (STUDY OF SUPREME COURT DECISION NUMBER: 435 PK/PID.SUS/2020) ABSTRACT There are BUMN assets in the form of land rights that are used as evidence in the Supreme Court Decision Number: 435 PK/Pid.Sus/2020 that have been transferred without going through the mechanism stipulated in the provisions. Not only that, the evidence is stated as collateral to pay compensation. This will raise problems regarding the validity of the control of land rights and law enforcement in corruption cases. This study discusses the issue of regulating the transfer of SOE assets, the judge's consideration in imposing a penalty in the form of payment of compensation that results in the transfer of BUMN’s assets, and the validity of the transfer of BUMN’sassets in the form of land rights in the Supreme Court Decision Number: 435 PK/Pid.Sus/2020. The research method of this study is a normative legal research type supported by empirical data with a statutory regulatory approach and a case approach carried out with a literature study to obtain primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials that will be analyzed qualitatively by drawing conclusions deductively. The results of this study show that the Regulation on the Transfer of SOE assets has been regulated in the Regulation of the Minister of SOEs Number PER-02/MBU/2010. The Judge's consideration in the Supreme Court Decision Number: 435 PK/Pid.Sus/2020 can be said to be wrong because the object of evidence number 169 in the form of 74 Ha (seventy-four hectares) of land is an asset of BUMN that has not been written off and transferred in accordance with the provisions of the law. The transfer is said to be invalid because it is contrary to the Regulation of the Minister of SOEs Number PER-02/MBU/2010, then the execution of the evidence cannot be carried out because it is contrary to Article 6 of the Supreme Court Regulation Number 5 of 2014 concerning the Crime of Additional Substitute Money in Corruption Crimes The recommendation of this research is that it is hoped that the BUMN Company will write off BUMN assets that have been granted HGU that has not been extended in accordance with the Regulations on Writing Off and Transferring BUMN Assets. It is recommended that the Panel of Judges consider the provisions in the Regulation of the Minister of BUMN Number PER-02/MBU/2010 Fixed Assets against the object of evidence number 169 in the form of Land covering an area of 74 Ha (seventy-four hectares) as a BUMN asset that has not been written off and transferred. It is recommended that PT. Perkebunan Nusantara II (Persero) as the third party who was harmed file an objection to the Supreme Court Decision Vi Number: 1331 K/PID.SUS/2019 which was strengthened in the Supreme Court Decision Number: 435 PK/Pid.Sus/2020 so that it can cancel the determination of the status of the evidence. Keywords: BUMN Assets, Corruption Crimes, Replacement Money