Penyelesaian Prejudicieel Geschil yang Timbul Antara Perkara Tindak Pidana Penipuan dan Penggelapan dengan Perbuatan Ingkar Janji (Wanprestasi) (Studi Putusan Perdata Nomor 1075/PDT.G/2019/PN SBY dan Putusan Pidana Nomor 2482/PID.B/2020/PN SBY)

Abstract

In practice, often the point of contact between civil and criminal cases can involve the parties involved in the criminal and civil cases, or it can be a point of contact regarding legal issues relating to the rights attached to certain goods. This is what is called a "pre-judicial dispute" or "prejudicieel geschil" or "preliminary dispute". This normative juridical research focuses on the aim of knowing and analyzing the role of applying prejudicieel geschil in criminal cases in which there are criminal elements, regarding the resolution of prejudicieel geschil in criminal cases of fraud and embezzlement by breaking promises (default) based on Civil Decision Number 1075/Pdt .G/2019/PN Sby and Criminal Decision Number 2482/Pid.B/2020/PN Sby, and also regarding obstacles to the application of prejudicieel geschil in cases of resolving criminal disputes that have the potential to contain civil elements. The results of this research explain that the application of prejudicieel geschil is related to the elements of the criminal offense article in this research referring to Jampidum Letter No. B-230/E/Ejp/01/2013, which explains that if there is a civil lawsuit regarding goods (land) or regarding a legal relationship (sale and purchase) between 2 (two) certain parties, then the criminal case in question can be suspended/pending and awaiting the court's decision in his civil case. The decision of the panel of judges regarding the existence of prejudicieel geschil in Decision Number 2482/Pid.B/2020/PN Sby regarding criminal acts of fraud and embezzlement, which postponed/postponed the decision on the grounds that the decision in civil case number 1075/Pdt.G/2019/PN was in progress Sby, that's not right. In this decision, the panel of judges should have continued the process of examining cases of criminal acts of fraud and embezzlement because, as a whole, the defendant's actions fulfilled the elements of Article 378 (Fraud). This is in accordance with the Supreme Court Jurisprudence which states that "a person who hands over a check, even though he knows that the check has no funds, his actions constitute deception as intended in Article 378 of the Criminal Code". Furthermore, it is further emphasized based on the view of the Supreme Court in Decision no. 1036 K/Pid/1989, which states that "The defendant knowingly knew that the checks given to the victim witness had no funds or were known as bad checks, the charge of "fraud" must be considered proven." Thus, for future legal needs (ius constitiuendum) clear legal rules are needed to be able to realize court decisions that fulfill the principles of certainty, justice and legal benefits for all Indonesian people.