CD Skripsi

Analisis Putusan Nomor 1/Pid.B/2020/Pn.Tlk Terkait Tindak Pidana Pencurian Buku Pemilikan Kendaraan Bermotor Belum Balik Nama Perspektif Hukum Pidana Indonesia

---

ABSTRACT
Pre Judiciel Geschill (Pre Judiciel Geschill) is a judicial dispute arising
between a criminal court and a civil court, which must be resolved first. The
unsystematic application of Pre Judiciel Geschill will result in at least 2 (two)
problems, namely problems of evidentiary validity and problems of contradiction
between decisions. Therefore, it is very important to comprehensively understand
the statutory provisions, so as not to cause misunderstanding which results in a
slow process of fulfilling justice. However, the facts on the ground show that judges
often neglect their responsibilities. As happened in decision number
1/PID.B/2020/PN.TLK which shows the lack of carefulness of the judge in
examining the elements of Article 362 of the Criminal Code which was convicted
against the defendant. The purpose of this research is to find out the basis of the
judge's consideration in deciding case number 1/PID.B/2020/PN.TLK concerning
Theft of Motor Vehicle Ownership Book Not yet Renamed from the Perspective of
Indonesian Criminal Law and to provide an appropriate solution to the court's
decision for case number 1/PID.B/2020/PN.TLK concerning Theft of Motor Vehicle
Ownership Book Not yet Renamed from the Perspective of Indonesian Criminal
Law.
This research is normative legal research supported by secondary data in
the form of case files. It is also called doctrinal legal research, namely legal
research that uses data based on literature research by taking quotations from
literature related to the problem under study. Thus, this research uses secondary
data sources consisting of primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials. This
research also uses qualitative data analysis and produces descriptive data.
From the results of the discussion and research conducted, there are several
conclusions obtained, namely: First, the judge considered that all elements of
Article 362 of the Criminal Code had been fulfilled, and stated that the defendant
had been legally and convincingly proven to have committed the crime as charged
in the Single Indictment. However, the judge did not consider the legal ownership
based on the law. Second, the judge's reasoning was not in accordance with the
applicable laws and regulations because the defendant's actions did not fulfill the
elements of ownership in Article 362 of the Criminal Code even though it applies
cumulatively. The judge should have considered Law Number 22 of 2009
concerning Road Traffic and Transportation and other regulations that emphasize
that legal ownership is stated in the Motor Vehicle Ownership Book. Thus, the
collector is not authorized to transfer ownership to the reporting witness or victim
because only the Regional Police Traffic Unit is authorized to go through the civil
process first to formalize ownership. So that what is more appropriate to apply in
this case is a decision released from all charges (ontslag van alle
rechtsvervolging).
Keywords: Possession – Theft - Prayudicial Disput
1

---

Ketersediaan

Informasi Detail

Judul Seri

-

No. Panggil

1909110583

Penerbit

Pekanbaru : Universitas Riau – Fakultas Hukum – Hukum Pidana., 2023

Deskripsi Fisik

-

Bahasa

Indonesia

ISBN/ISSN

-

Klasifikasi

1909110583

Tipe Isi

-

Tipe Media

-

Tipe Pembawa

-

Edisi

-

Subjek

HUKUM PIDANA

Info Detail Spesifik

-

Pernyataan Tanggungjawab

DAUS

Versi lain/terkait

Lampiran Berkas

Komentar

---

Anda harus masuk sebelum memberikan komentar