Normative and Empirical Juridical Approach

Oct 13, 2025 by magicalceylontours.com 94 views

Juridical Review of State Finance Elements in Corruption Crimes: A Study of Decision Number 18/Pid.Sus-TPK/2017/PN BNA on the Elements of the Holerness of State Finances

Introduction

In the realm of law, particularly in the context of corruption, the significance of clear regulations on the element of harm to the country's finances cannot be overstated. The case of decision number 18/Pid.Sus-TPK/2017/PN BNA, involving Hj. Mariana Binti Abdul Wahab, a Bank Aceh employee, who was implicated in a fictitious credit scandal involving civil servants, serves as a prime example of how the legal arrangements relating to state finances and corruption often intersect, giving rise to a contentious issue that necessitates a thorough juridical review.

The Legal Framework of State Finance Elements in Corruption Crimes

According to Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 of Law Number 31 of 1999, which has been amended through Law Number 20 of 2001, one of the essential requirements to prove corruption is a loss in state finances. This loss can occur in both State-Owned Enterprises (BUMN) and Regional-Owned Enterprises (BUMD), as long as the act is against the law. Furthermore, the arrangements related to state finances are regulated in Law Number 17 of 2003 concerning State Finances and Law Number 40 of 2007 concerning Limited Liability Companies.

It is crucial to distinguish between losses experienced by business entities as legal entities and their impact on state finances as a whole. This distinction is essential in understanding the dynamics between state finances and corruption crimes. The legal framework provides a clear understanding of the elements of harm to state finances, which is a critical aspect in proving corruption cases.

Analysis of the Elements of State Finance in Decision Number 18/Pid.Sus-TPK/2017/PN BNA

A closer examination of the verdict number 18/Pid.Sus-TPK/2017/PN BNA reveals that the elements of harm to state finances in this case were not fulfilled. This is due to a lack of evidence that shows a clear act of law. In this case, financial losses at Bank Aceh can only be identified after the financial statements at the end of the year, indicating that the loss cannot be directly linked to Hj. Mariana's actions.

The analysis of this case highlights the importance of clear evidence in proving corruption cases. The lack of evidence in this case led to the failure to fulfill the elements of harm to state finances, which is a critical aspect in proving corruption crimes.

Normative and Empirical Juridical Approach

In compiling this study, the authors employed the normative juridical method with the approach of the legislation and the case approach. Meanwhile, the empirical juridical approach was carried out through field research aimed at seeing the application of law directly.

The results of this study showed that there was a need to clarify legal arrangements regarding elements that could harm the state finances in criminal acts of corruption. Furthermore, the community and law enforcers need to understand that the losses suffered by business entities do not always have implications for state finances, and there must be strong evidence to prove the connection.

Conclusion

Cases such as the one stated in the decision number 18/Pid.Sus-TPK/2017/PN BNA are crucial examples in understanding the dynamics between state finances and criminal acts of corruption. Through existing legal arrangements, we must continue to encourage evaluation and improvement to prevent errors in legal assessment that can harm many parties.

It is essential to have a shared awareness to understand the intricacies of law and its impact on better state financial management, so that similar cases do not happen in the future. The juridical review of state finance elements in corruption crimes is a critical aspect in ensuring that the legal framework is effective in preventing and prosecuting corruption crimes.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are made:

Clarification of Legal Arrangements: There is a need to clarify legal arrangements regarding elements that could harm the state finances in criminal acts of corruption.
Education and Awareness: The community and law enforcers need to understand that the losses suffered by business entities do not always have implications for state finances, and there must be strong evidence to prove the connection.
Evaluation and Improvement: Existing legal arrangements must be evaluated and improved to prevent errors in legal assessment that can harm many parties.
Shared Awareness: It is essential to have a shared awareness to understand the intricacies of law and its impact on better state financial management.

By implementing these recommendations, we can ensure that the legal framework is effective in preventing and prosecuting corruption crimes, and that the state finances are protected from harm.

Limitations of the Study

This study has several limitations, including:

Case Study: This study is based on a single case study, which may not be representative of all corruption cases.
Legal Framework: The study is limited to the legal framework of Indonesia, which may not be applicable to other countries.
Data Collection: The study relies on secondary data, which may not be comprehensive or accurate.

Future Research Directions

Future research directions include:

Comparative Study: A comparative study of corruption cases in different countries to identify best practices and lessons learned.
Empirical Study: An empirical study to investigate the impact of corruption on state finances and the effectiveness of legal arrangements in preventing and prosecuting corruption crimes.
Policy Analysis: A policy analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of existing policies and laws in preventing and prosecuting corruption crimes.

By addressing these limitations and exploring new research directions, we can further contribute to the understanding of corruption crimes and the protection of state finances.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on Juridical Review of State Finance Elements in Corruption Crimes

Q: What is the significance of clear regulations on the element of harm to the country's finances in corruption cases?

A: Clear regulations on the element of harm to the country's finances are essential in corruption cases as they provide a clear understanding of the elements of harm to state finances, which is a critical aspect in proving corruption crimes.

Q: What is the role of Law Number 31 of 1999 in regulating state finances in corruption crimes?

A: Law Number 31 of 1999, which has been amended through Law Number 20 of 2001, provides the legal framework for regulating state finances in corruption crimes. It requires that one of the essential requirements to prove corruption is a loss in state finances.

Q: What is the difference between losses experienced by business entities as legal entities and their impact on state finances as a whole?

A: The distinction between losses experienced by business entities as legal entities and their impact on state finances as a whole is essential in understanding the dynamics between state finances and corruption crimes. This distinction is critical in determining whether a loss in state finances has occurred.

Q: What is the significance of the verdict number 18/Pid.Sus-TPK/2017/PN BNA in understanding the dynamics between state finances and corruption crimes?

A: The verdict number 18/Pid.Sus-TPK/2017/PN BNA is a crucial example in understanding the dynamics between state finances and corruption crimes. It highlights the importance of clear evidence in proving corruption cases and the need for a thorough juridical review.

Q: What is the normative juridical approach, and how is it used in this study?

A: The normative juridical approach is a method used in this study to analyze the legal framework and its application in corruption crimes. It involves the use of legislation and case law to understand the dynamics between state finances and corruption crimes.

Q: What is the empirical juridical approach, and how is it used in this study?

A: The empirical juridical approach is a method used in this study to investigate the application of law in corruption crimes. It involves field research to see the application of law directly and to understand the impact of corruption on state finances.

Q: What are the recommendations of this study?

A: The recommendations of this study include:

Clarification of Legal Arrangements: There is a need to clarify legal arrangements regarding elements that could harm the state finances in criminal acts of corruption.
Education and Awareness: The community and law enforcers need to understand that the losses suffered by business entities do not always have implications for state finances, and there must be strong evidence to prove the connection.
Evaluation and Improvement: Existing legal arrangements must be evaluated and improved to prevent errors in legal assessment that can harm many parties.
Shared Awareness: It is essential to have a shared awareness to understand the intricacies of law and its impact on better state financial management.

Q: What are the limitations of this study?

A: The limitations of this study include:

Case Study: This study is based on a single case study, which may not be representative of all corruption cases.
Legal Framework: The study is limited to the legal framework of Indonesia, which may not be applicable to other countries.
Data Collection: The study relies on secondary data, which may not be comprehensive or accurate.

Q: What are the future research directions?

A: The future research directions include:

Comparative Study: A comparative study of corruption cases in different countries to identify best practices and lessons learned.
Empirical Study: An empirical study to investigate the impact of corruption on state finances and the effectiveness of legal arrangements in preventing and prosecuting corruption crimes.
Policy Analysis: A policy analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of existing policies and laws in preventing and prosecuting corruption crimes.