Penerapan Hukum Pidana Terhadap Pelaku Turut Serta Tindak Pidana Mengedarkan Uang Asing Palsu (Analisis Putusan Nomor 726/Pid.B/2023/PN Jkt Brt)

Abstract

Counterfeit money is an imitation of genuine currency that is deliberately produced by copying or reprinting, but it lacks any legal basis and is not recognized as legal tender. The criminal offense of circulating counterfeit foreign currency is a serious crime that threatens economic stability and the integrity of the national financial system. This study aims to analyze the application of criminal law to perpetrators who participate in the offense of circulating counterfeit foreign currency, with a case study of Decision No. 726/Pid.B/2023/PN Jkt Brt. The research questions examined include: (1) how criminal law regulates the offense of circulating counterfeit money; (2) how offenders and criminal liability are regulated under Indonesian criminal law; and (3) how the judge considered and applied criminal law to the offense of circulating counterfeit foreign currency in that decision. This research employs a normative legal research method. Accordingly, the data used consist of secondary data comprising primary legal materials, secondary legal materials, and tertiary legal materials. The data were then analyzed using qualitative data analysis. The findings show that the regulation of the offense of circulating counterfeit money is provided in the old Criminal Code, the new Criminal Code, and Law No. 7 of 2011 on Currency. Indonesian criminal law recognizes the doctrine of participation (deelneming) as stipulated in Articles 55 and 56 of the Criminal Code (KUHP), which imposes criminal penalties on those who take part in committing a crime. Criminal liability for participants may differ from one another, depending on the roles and acts of the perpetrators involved in a criminal offense.In Decision No. 726/Pid.B/2023/PN Jkt Brt, the judge stated that all elements of Article 245 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph (1) point 1 of the Criminal Code were fulfilled, and thus all defendants were found to be proven legally and convincingly. Nevertheless, further analysis indicates that not all perpetrators had equally significant roles in the commission of the offense, yet no differentiation was made in sentencing. Therefore, this study recommends that the application of Article 55 of the Criminal Code in cases involving participation be adjusted to the level of involvement and role of each perpetrator in order to achieve substantive justice.