Publication Search

The crime of receiving stolen goods, as regulated in Article 480 of the Criminal Code (KUHP), is an offence that plays a crucial role in the continuation of the principal crime, particularly theft. Receivers provide a market for stolen goods, thereby indirectly encouraging perpetrators to continue their actions. This article aims to analyse the implementation of Article 480 of the KUHP in judicial practice, with a focus on proving the element of ‘knowing or reasonably suspecting’ that the goods purchased were obtained through criminal activity. This study uses a qualitative method with a case study approach through direct observation of a trial at the M. District Court. The observations show that the panel of judges successfully proved the defendant's guilt as a fence through a series of trial facts, such as the unreasonable purchase price, consistent testimony from the perpetrator of the theft, and the defendant's own admission that he had been suspicious. The judge's decision, which was lighter than the prosecutor's demands, also reflected considerations of substantive justice and humanity in addition to legal certainty. This study concludes that the effective enforcement of Article 480 of the Criminal Code in court plays an important role in breaking the chain of crime and providing a deterrent effect not only for the main perpetrators but also for those who participate in enjoying the proceeds of crime.

The crime of receiving stolen goods, as regulated in Article 480 of the Criminal Code (KUHP), is an offence that plays a crucial role in the continuation of the principal crime, particularly theft. Receivers provide a market for stolen goods, thereby indirectly encouraging perpetrators to continue their actions. This paper investigates how Article 480 of the KUHP in judicial practice, with a focus on proving the element of ‘knowing or reasonably suspecting’ that the goods purchased were obtained through criminal activity. This study uses a qualitative method with a case study approach through direct observation of a trial at the M. District Court. The observations show that the panel of judges successfully proved the defendant's guilt as a fence through a series of trial facts, such as the unreasonable purchase price, consistent testimony from the perpetrator of the theft, and the defendant's own admission that he had been suspicious. The judge's decision, which was lighter than the prosecutor's demands, also reflected considerations of substantive justice and humanity in addition to legal certainty. This study concludes that the effective enforcement of Article 480 of the Criminal Code in court plays an important role in breaking the chain of crime and providing a deterrent effect not only for the main perpetrators but also for those who participate in enjoying the proceeds of crime.  

Indonesia is a country that highly upholds the law, this is stated in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. In line with these provisions, one of the important principles of a state based on law is the guarantee of equality for everyone faced with the law. The emergence of legal disputes related to land begins with objections related to claims for land rights, both regarding land status, priority and ownership, with the hope of obtaining administrative resolution in accordance with applicable provisions. The problem raised in this study is about court decision no. 148 / pdt.g / 2024 / pn in Tabanan. This study uses an empirical legal research method, namely research with field data as the main data source, such as interview results and observations. In addition, this research is also supported by normative data sourced from books and legislative studies. The purpose of this study is In general, this report aims to provide an overview of the settlement of criminal acts of court decisions in Tabanan. Based on the formulation of the problem How is the Implementation of Decision No.148/Pdt.G/2024/PN.Tab Regarding the Validity of Land Ownership Certificates, What legal remedies can be taken by legitimate heirs in the event of cancellation of the transfer of land ownership certificates. The results of the research conducted. It is known that the lack of concreteness of the Tabanan District Court's decision so that the settlement of civil cases is still ongoing, in process or ongoing, so far the parties involved are still trying to find a solution by collecting evidence and witnesses to resolve land disputes in Tabanan, the author concludes that the court has a central role in deciding cases and the author also advises all people before making land purchases and sales to check the completeness of documents, for example certificates.  

The problem of the legality of the agreement of the deed of debt and credit agreement into buying and selling requires legal certainty so that no one is harmed. Normative legal certainty is when a regulation is made and promulgated with certainty because it regulates clearly and logically. Clear in the sense that it does not cause doubt (multi-interpretation) and logical in the sense that it becomes a system of norms with other norms so that it does not clash or cause norm conflicts. Norm conflict arising from rule uncertainty can take the form of norm contestation, norm reduction or norm distortion. This research approach is descriptive analytical which describes legal events that occur as they are and conveys these conditions according to theory and legislation. The research method used in the research is empirical juridical which analyzes the Bandung District Court Decision Number: 162/PDT.G/2021/PN.BDG regarding the Legality of the Deed of Sale and Purchase Agreement as Collateral for Debt and Credit Due to Legal Defects. The results of this study show that; AJB, which should be a proof of transfer of land rights in a real sale and purchase transaction, in this case is used to guarantee debt repayment. This is a deviation from the function of the AJB, which is legally unjustified because it contradicts the principle of halal causa (Articles 1335 and 1337 of the Civil Code). Therefore, the AJB made does not meet the elements of a valid causa, and therefore can be canceled or even null and void.