Tinjauan yuridis tentang penilaian penerapan hukum oleh judex facti sebagai dasar pemeriksaan kasasi oleh hakim mahkamah agung dalam perkara tindak pidana korupsi bank mandiri dengan terdakwa E.C.W Neloe
Juhartini - E0005026 - Fak. Hukum
This research studies and answer the problem concerning the criteria that judex facti perhaps has made a mistake in applying the law as the foundation of appeal case examination by the Supreme Court’s judge in the Mandiri Bank corruption crime case with the accused E.C.W Neloe and the assessment whether there is or not the error law application by judex facti as the foundation of appeal case examination by the Supreme Court’s judge in the Mandiri Bank corruption crime case with the accused E.C.W Neloe.
This study belonged to a normative law research that was descriptive in nature. The research data employed was secondary one consisting of law materials (primary, secondary, tertiary). The type of study in this law research was what the judge decided in concerto and is systemized as the judges through, judicial process. The study employed a case approach. Technique of collecting data employed was documentary study or literary study. Technique of analyzing data used was content analysis.
The basis of appeal case examination on the freedom verdict in the Mandiri Bank corruption crime case with the accused E.C.W Neloe and friends include: firstly, the impure liberation reason that is misinterpretation on the criminal action element in the accusation letter, the inclusion of non-juridical element, beyond the authority; secondly, the reason of appeal on Article 253 clause (1) KUPHAP and Article 30 clause (1) of Act No. 5 of 2004 about the Amendment of Act No. 14 of 1985 about the Supreme Court in which the law regulation is not applied or applied improperly or breaking the prevailing law that is to state that the accused’s action belongs to the civil case but it is decided as free, the accusation is proved but is freed, is decided as free but is required to pay any case charge, the trial method is not implemented according to the Law that indicates the conviction that the accused is not guilty in the trial, beyond the authority limit that is the absolute authority because the material test is conducted to the word “can” in Act No. 31 of 1999 jo. Act No. 2000 of 2001 about the Eradication of Corruption Crimes, negligent in fulfilling the obligatory condition according to the legislation that threats such negligence with the cancellation of pertained verdict that only considers the witness a de charge proposed by the accused’s lawyer and does not consider the letter evidence. There is law error implementation by judexfacti based on the Supreme Court judge’s deliberation that judex facti makes the law error application, exceeds his authority, conducts material test, and makes the law verification implementation error.