Abstrak :
Criminal acts of fraud and criminal acts of embezzlement are crimes against
property and wealth. The crime of fraud in the usual form is regulated by Article
378 of the Criminal Code, while the crime of embezzlement in the usual form is
regulated by Article 372 of the Criminal Code. The criminal threat in Article 378
of the Criminal Code is in the form of imprisonment, while in Article 372 it is in
the form of imprisonment or fines. Banyuwangi District Court Decision Number
416/Pid.B/2021/PN Byw, the Public Prosecutor submitted an alternative
indictment, namely the first alternative indictment of Article 378 of the Criminal
Code and the second alternative indictment of Article 372 of the Criminal Code.
The panel of judges in their considerations considered that the Defendant was
legally and convincingly proven guilty of committing a criminal act of fraud as in
the first alternative indictment so that the second alternative indictment does not
need to be proven. The panel of judges decided that the Defendant was sentenced
to imprisonment for 1 (one) year and 6 (six) months. The research method used in
this research is normative juridical. The specification of this research is an
analytical perspective. The method of collecting legal materials is carried out by
taking inventory of legal materials for primary legal materials, and studying the
literature for secondary legal materials. The results of this study indicate that the
Defendant's actions did not use elements of a false name, false dignity, deception
or a series of lies so that it would be inappropriate if he was subjected to a
criminal act of fraud. The object of the crime, namely the car, was in the control
of the Defendant not because of a crime so that the crime committed by the
Defendant could be categorized as a crime of embezzlement because it fulfilled
the elements in Article 372 of the Criminal Code. Keywords: Fraud Crime, Embezzlement Crime, Judge's Legal Considerations.
|
