Analisis Yuridis Pengembalian Barang Bukti Kepada yang Berhak dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi (Studi Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1331K/Pid.Sus/2019)

Abstract

Evidence is important in the process of examining corruption criminal cases considering that it can be confiscated for the state because it has harmed the state, but in practice, as in the Supreme Court Decision No. 1331K/Pid.Sus/2019, the evidence is returned to the rightful defendant, even though the defendant has been proven guilty of committing a corruption crime. This research focuses on a study of the position of evidence in proving corruption cases; a study of the Supreme Court Decision in Decision No. 1331K/Pid.Sus/2019 concerning land object evidence in corruption crimes returned to the rightful defendant; and the role of the prosecutor's office on decisions stating that evidence is returned to the rightful defendant. This research uses descriptive analytical normative legal research methods with a statutory approach, and a case approach. The literature study technique is used to obtain secondary data which includes primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The data was then analyzed using qualitative data analysis methods and deductive inference. Based on the results of the research, it is concluded that the position of evidence in the system of proving corruption crimes is additional evidence to legal evidence according to the Criminal Procedure Code and can be aimed at deprivation. Supreme Court Decision No. 1331K/Pid.Sus/2019 states that the land object evidence is returned to the rightful owner because the evidence in the form of land does not fully belong to the defendant does not represent the purpose of the law because it is considered different from the facts of the trial. The role of the prosecutor's office to make a settlement to return the evidence to the rightful person as the judge's decision that has permanent legal force. It is hoped that the Criminal Procedure Bill will regulate the position of evidence. In the future, the Supreme Court judges will be more careful in looking at the legal facts in the trial to consider determining the status of evidence, and in the future investigators and prosecutors / public prosecutors will combine corruption crimes with money laundering crimes so that the potential confiscation target can be achieved. There needs to be a regulation regarding the explanation of the phrase "who is entitled".