CD Skripsi

Analisis Pasal 69 Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2010 Tentang Pencegahan Dan Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Pencucian Uang Dalam Perspektif Kepastian Hukum

---

The problem that has been an obstacle for the prosecutor's office to enforce money laundering offenses is the evidence which constitutes "multiple and related offenses", which means that the offense will not exist if there are no other offenses as the origin of the offense. Article 2 of Law Number 8 of 2010 has stated the types of predicated crimes in money laundering. The crime of money laundering is included in the qualification of a special crime, not a general crime. In practice, law enforcement institutions have complained a lot about money laundering offenses, because what has been regulated in norms or legislation is not in line with reality. In connection with the principle that it is impossible for a money laundering crime to occur without an initial crime, there is a very important problem, namely that the provisions of Article 69 can actually mean that there is no need for a proven main crime to prosecute and punish the perpetrators. The formulation of the first problem is how to analyze article 69 of law number 8 of 2010 concerning the prevention and eradication of money laundering in the perspective of legal certainty, secondly, how ideally is the proof in handling cases of money laundering crimes. The research method is normative legal research with a statutory approach. The result of the research is that the analysis of Article 69 of Law No. 8 of 2010 concerning the prevention and eradication of the crime of money laundering in the perspective of legal certainty occurs because in Article 69 there is no need for a proven main crime to prosecute and criminalize the perpetrators. This article appears with a philosophical basis so that law enforcement officers are not only focused on proving the predicate crime, but also demands the perpetrators to prove themselves from where the source of the assets obtained is. Meanwhile, ideally, evidence in handling cases of money laundering in conducting investigations, prosecutions, and examinations in court is not required to prove the original crime. When the prosecutor has named a suspect because of alleged assets that are not in accordance with the work, and what the public prosecutor has indicted against the perpetrator, there should no longer be a need for a judge to say that proof of non-predicate crime must be proven first. In addition, the investigation and investigation of money laundering cases will be expanded. The investigation of money laundering cases is not only done by the police and prosecutors, but also all institutions that have investigative authority. In addition to the investigating agencies that will be added, the number of agencies required to report suspicious transactions will be increased. The investigative authority does not lie with the police, but all agencies that have the authority to investigate.
Keywords: Predicate Crime; Money laundering; Legal certainty;

---

Ketersediaan

Informasi Detail

Judul Seri

-

No. Panggil

10 14. 221 (0022)

Penerbit

Pekanbaru : Universitas Riau – Pascasarjana – Tesis Ilmu Hukum., 2021

Deskripsi Fisik

ix, 125 hlm.: ill.: 29 cm

Bahasa

Indonesia

ISBN/ISSN

-

Klasifikasi

10 14. 221 (0022)

Tipe Isi

-

Tipe Media

-

Tipe Pembawa

-

Edisi

-

Subjek

ILMU HUKUM

Info Detail Spesifik

-

Pernyataan Tanggungjawab

FATAH

Versi lain/terkait

Lampiran Berkas

Komentar

---

Anda harus masuk sebelum memberikan komentar