{"id":23847,"date":"2023-12-05T14:22:26","date_gmt":"2023-12-05T07:22:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/?p=23847"},"modified":"2023-12-05T14:24:22","modified_gmt":"2023-12-05T07:24:22","slug":"eksaminasi-putusan-pengadilan-tindak-pidana-korupsi-atas-nama-terdakwa-samin-tan-kerja-sama-fh-ugm-dan-kpk","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/eksaminasi-putusan-pengadilan-tindak-pidana-korupsi-atas-nama-terdakwa-samin-tan-kerja-sama-fh-ugm-dan-kpk\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of the Corruption Court\u2019s Verdict in the Case of Defendant Samin Tan: A Collaboration Between the UGM Faculty of Law and the KPK"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">In 2023, the Corruption Eradication Commission of the Republic of Indonesia (KPK RI) entered into a cooperation agreement with the Faculty of Law at UGM to conduct an examination of the rulings of the Corruption Crimes Court and the Supreme Court regarding the defendant Samin Tan. Samin Tan was charged with bribery under the alternative charges of Article 5(1)(a) or Article 13 of Law No. 31 of 1999 as amended by Law No. 20 of 2001 on the Eradication of Corruption (UU PTPK). Samin Tan is alleged to have provided a bribe or gratuity to Eni Maulani Saragih, a member of Commission VII of the Indonesian House of Representatives. Eni Maulani Saragih was found guilty of accepting bribes and gratuities in the Judgment of the Jakarta Corruption Court No. 100\/Pid.Sus-TPK\/2018\/PN. Jkt Pst dated March 1, 2019. However, Samin Tan, as the provider of the gratuity, was acquitted in the Jakarta Corruption Court\u2019s Judgment No. 37\/Pid.Sus-TPK\/2021\/PN.Jkt.Pst dated August 30, 2021, which was further upheld by the Supreme Court\u2019s Judgment No. 2205 K\/ Pid.sus\/2022 dated June 9, 2022. This examination was conducted to analyze the judgment regarding the defendant Samin Tan from the perspective of principles of criminal law, legislation, and previous court rulings.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"translation-block\">This examination was conducted by a team from the Department of Criminal Law at Gadjah Mada University, chaired by Dr. Supriyadi, S.H., M.Hum, and comprising Muhammad Fatahillah Akbar, S.H., LL.M. The results of this examination were also discussed in a Focus Group Discussion held on Thursday, November 23, 2023, in Room B.5.5 on the 5th floor of Building B, Faculty of Law, Gadjah Mada University. The FGD was attended by Prof. Dr. Marcus Priyo Gunarto, S.H., M.Hum (Chair of the Department of Criminal Law at UGM), Diantika Rindam Floranti, S.H., LL. M. (Lecturer in the Department of Criminal Law at UGM), representatives from the Yogyakarta Special Region High Prosecutor\u2019s Office, the Yogyakarta District Prosecutor\u2019s Office, and the Sub-Directorate for Corruption Crimes of the Yogyakarta Special Region Police.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\">This examination concluded that the giving of gratuities is punishable under at least Article 5(1)(a), Article 5(1)(b), or, at the very least, Article 13 of the Anti-Corruption Law. The distinction in the application of these provisions depends on the intent behind the gift\u2014whether it was intended to influence a specific authority or merely due to the recipient\u2019s official position. There have been several previous court rulings that have imposed criminal penalties in cases involving the offering of gratuities. Therefore, the Supreme Court needs to clarify its position regarding the act of offering gratuities.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><img fetchpriority=\"high\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-23849 size-full\" src=\"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2023\/12\/20231123_114707.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"920\" height=\"517\" srcset=\"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2023\/12\/20231123_114707.jpg 920w, https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2023\/12\/20231123_114707-300x169.jpg 300w, https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2023\/12\/20231123_114707-768x432.jpg 768w, https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2023\/12\/20231123_114707-18x10.jpg 18w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 920px) 100vw, 920px\" \/><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Pada Tahun 2023, Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi Republik Indonesia (KPK RI) mengadakan perjanjian kerjasama dengan Fakultas Hukum UGM untuk melakukan Eksaminasi terhadap Putusan Pengadilan Tindak Pidana Korupsi dan Mahkamah Agung atas nama Terdakwa Samin Tan. Samin Tan didakwa atas perbuatan Pemberian Suap dengan Dakwaan Alternatif Pasal 5 ayat (1) huruf a atau Pasal 13 Undang-Undang Nomor [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":95,"featured_media":23848,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"default","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"set","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23847","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-berita"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23847","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/95"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23847"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23847\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23851,"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23847\/revisions\/23851"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/23848"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23847"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23847"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.ugm.ac.id\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23847"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}