| dc.description.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. | en_US |
