Publication Search

This study analyzes the construction of criminal liability in the crime of handling stolen goods, focusing on situations where the perpetrator purchases or receives goods without knowing they are the result of a crime, especially when the economic value is relatively small, i.e., below Rp5,000,000. This normative study uses a legislative approach by examining Article 591 of Law Number 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code (KUHP), as well as a conceptual approach to the theory of fault (schuld) and the principle of proportionality. The study's findings show that in transactions involving low-value goods, proving the subjective element of "knowing or should have known" becomes highly problematic because the element of intent (dolus) is often not met without objective suspicious indications. The concept of price fairness plays a key role as the primary indicator of normal transactions and weakens the assumption that the perpetrator should suspect the illegal origin of the goods. This study recommends that law enforcement consider using non-criminal mechanisms, such as restitution or mediation, to achieve substantive justice and avoid excessive criminalization.

Honor killing cases often involve a distributed structure of perpetrators between decision-makers, providers of means, and implementers. This collective pattern raises the problem of role attribution in criminal law enforcement, which often shifts toward two problematic tendencies: centralizing responsibility on the executor or expanding criminal responsibility based on family ties. This article aims to formulate a tested role attribution model so that criminal responsibility does not stop at the direct perpetrator and does not develop into association-based punishment. This research uses a normative legal research method with a conceptual approach. Data collection methods were collected using literature studies, then analyzed qualitatively and presented descriptively. The research results formulate a role map of instigator, facilitator, and executor, operationalized through group role attribution based on two axes: causal contribution and normative contribution. The instigator is understood as the driver who shapes the will and locks the decision, the facilitator is understood as an assistant who deliberately provides the opportunity, means, or information. Meanwhile, the executor is someone who carries out the material act, although in terms of position, their actions are not automatically identical to the dominance of the decision. This division of roles is complemented by evidentiary indicators covering communication, financing, provision of facilities, field control, and post-incident intimidation, along with negative criteria to prevent inferences based on blood relations or passive presence. This model provides a more measurable standard of attribution for investigation, prosecution, and sentencing in collective honor killing cases.