Suchergebnisse

This paper reviews decision Number 1595 K/Pid.Sus/2020 dated May 28, 2020, regarding the case of the defendant Kang Hoke Wijaya (commissioner of Hosian Sejati corporation). In their decision, the panel of judges at the cassation level overturned the decision of the previous level court which only imposed the crime of "continuous embezzlement in office" into a criminal offense of "continuous embezzlement in office and money laundering (TPPU)". The purpose of this research is to identify and analyze the responsibility of the commissioner for embezzlement in office from the perspective of money laundering. The research method used a normative juridical with legislation and case approach in the form of court decisions that have legally binding. The research concluded that the panel of judges at the cassation level was correct in their decision, as stipulated and threatened with criminality in Article 374 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 64 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code and Article 3 of Law Number 8 of 2010, where the defendant had committed a crime of money laundering for the proceeds of the crime of embezzlement in his position as a commissioner of Hosian Sejati corporation. The authority and responsibility of the defendant as a commissioner and holder of 60% of the company's shares do not constitute legality for the defendant in committing money laundering. The subject of responsibility for the crime of money laundering is not only borne by the defendant as an individual but can also be a collective responsibility of the corporation as a community. Keywords: Accountability, Embezzlement in Office, Money Laundering