Juridical Analysis Of Criminal Acts Of Corruption With The Use Of Social Assistance Funds In The Ministry Of Education And Culture (Decision Of The Serang State Court No. 25/Pid. Sus-Tpk/2017/Pn.Srg)

摘要

This research is to find out the application of Corruption Crimes committed by the Defendant in collecting from the Social Assistance Fund at the Ministry of Education and Culture according to Decision No. 25/Pid.Sus/2017/PN.SRG. This study uses Juridical-Empirical Research method, namely research that uses two ways, namely library research and field research, and data collection techniques used, namely data that has been collected both primary data sources and secondary data sources. The results of this study Defendants were proven to have violated Pasal 2 ayat 1 Jo Pasal 18 Undang-Undang Nomor 31 Tahun 1999 as amended by Undang-Undang Nomor 20 tahun 2001 as amended by Act Number 20 of 2001 concerning Eradication of Corruption Crime Jo Pasal 55 ayat 1 ke-1 KUHP is cut/collect social assistance funds from recipients of social assistance on the grounds that there are fees paid to the center and the social assistance funds that are deducted/collected will be distributed again to the central person or the Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture who manages the search for social assistance, Technical Guidelines for Distribution of Social Assistance in 2015 in Chapter V concerning Supervision and Complaints in Point B concerning Complaints in the Contents "To Obtain No Social Assistance Funds Charged by Anyone" and Article 4 paragraph 6 Republic of Indonesia Minister of Finance Regulation Number 81/PMK.05/2012 which contains "Social assistance provided by the Social Assistance Giver is not to be taken by the Provider of social assistance. The Defendant's act has benefited the Defendant and has caused State Finance losses of 230,354,000 (two hundred thirty million Three hundred fifty four thousand rupiahs) and the Corruption Court's decision at the Serang District Court the defendant was sentenced to 2 (two) years prison is lighter than the prosecutor's demands, namely 4 (four) years in prison.