Analisa Yuridis Penegakan Hukum Pidana terhadap Tindak Pidana Korupsi pada Penyusunan Master Plan Kota Medan Tahun 2006-2016

Abstract

The principle of criminal's responsibility in criminal law is based on the guilt (schuld) in the action against the law (wederechtelijk) as a requirement for the imposition of criminal (grenzen van delictsomschrijving, wederrechtelijk is en aan schuld te wijten). Up to now, it is frequently found out that the decisions made by the judge handling the criminal act of corruption do not contain a clear legal consideration, especially those related to the difference between the criteria of "enriching" element and or the element of "advantaging". One of them is the Decision of "Tipikor" (Criminal Act of Corruption) Court related to the corruption of Medan Master Plan of 2006-2016 stating that the element of "enriching" cannot be proven as primary charge. In this case, the judge said that the subsidiary charge of "with the intention to benefit oneself or any other person or corporation" was proven. In the judge 's opinion, there was an element of the actor's intention to take the fund by not employing all of the 45 experts and 35 assistants to expert that it benefited the actor. The problems discussed in this study including the kind of criminal act of corruption, responsibility and punishment for the corruptor in the preparation of Medan Master Plan of 2006-2016. The data for this normative legal study with statute approach were the secondary data obtained through library research in the forms of legal materials related to the law enforcement on the case of corruption in the procurement of consulting services during the preparation of Medan Master Plan of 2006 - 2016 at the Tipikor Court of Medan State Court. All of the data obtained were qualitatively analyzed. The decision of the Tipikor Court of Medan State Court concerning the case of corruption in the procurement of consulting services during the preparation of Medan Master Plan of 2006 - 2016 with the modus operandi of not employing all of the 45 experts and 35 assistants to expert stated that, according to the opinion of the panel of judges, the primary charges, especially related to the element of benefitting oneself or any other person or corporation as meant by Article 2 paragraph (1), was not proven, but the subsidiary charge as meant by Article 3 of Law No.3111999 juncto law No. 2012001 on Corruption Eradication.